1987 PLP 91 (PLC)

Kamal Mansoor Alam for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th July, 1986. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 9-7-1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV,Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.0, 1969.

2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant was employed as mid-wife since November, 1980 in the Medical Department of the respondent Corporation and was posted as such in the Poly-Clinic of the Corporation situated in the Steel Town, Karachi. On 31-5-1983, she was served with a show-cause notice, alleging therein as under: - "She failed to inform the Medical Officer on duty, about the express delivery of patient Mst. Nawab Bibi, wife of Mr. Hafiz Arshad Hussain, brought at Poly Clinic Steel Town, at about 22.30 hours, on 29-5-1983, and she also failed to make entry in the Ward Patient Register to prepare requisite slip and that she kept patient unauthorizedly, in the ward, from 22.30 hours of 29-5-1983 to 6-30 hours of 30-5-1983 and administered treatment of drug without any advice from the Medical Officer on duty." It was alleged that due to the above act of appellant, the lady patient died. The second allegation against the appellant was that she indulged in misconduct of insubordination, and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders by going to the house of the deceased and conducted unauthorized delivery on 30-5-1983 with intention to take illegal gratification. On 5-6-1983, the appellant submitted her explanation, but, as it was found unsatisfactory, therefore, a Board of Enquiry, consisting of Mr. Muhammad Younus and Dr.Iftikhar Ahmad was constituted. The appellant claimed that the Board of Enquiry did not give the impartial findings and had acted in violation of the rules of natural justice by failing to provide copies of the complaint, preliminary investigation and proceedings, which was her right, regarding condition of service.

3. The respondent Corporation has resisted the petition of the appellant before the learned Labour Court and had denied all the allegations of the appellant. The respondent has raised legal objection that the appellant was not a workman within the definition of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, inasmuch as, she, while working as Mid-wife in the Poly-Clinic of the Steel Town was not covered by the definition of 'workman'; so, the grievance petition filed by her under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was not maintainable.

4. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation and have perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. M.L. Shahani has raised two-fold contentions, firstly, that as the Poly Clinic situated within the premises of Steel Town of the respondent Corporation for the general welfare and treatment of the Corporation's employees and their families only, and is financed and administered, solely by the respondent Corporation; therefore, it cannot be said either an independent or charitable hospital. Secondly, as the appellant was governed under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and so, she was also charge-sheeted under Standing Order 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders (Ordinance 1968), as amended, therefore, section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is very well applicable to her, and not the whole Ordinance, thus, the grievance petition filed by her under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, is maintainable in Law. In support of his contentions, Mr. Shahani has relied upon a decision of Single Judge of Sind High Court, reported in P L D 1978 Kar.

536. I see no force in the contentions of Mr. Shahani.

5. On the other hand. Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam, the learned Advocate for the respondent Corporation has contended that as the Poly Clinic situated in the Steel Town and is meant for free of cost welfare and treatment of the patients, therefore, it being charitable hospital running on no profit for any person or organization, thus, it is neither a commercial establishment nor an industrial establishment. Hence, a grievance petition before a Labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 is not maintainable. Mr. Kamal Mansoor Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has- referred to me to a decision of this Tribunal in the case reported in 1982 P L C

747. I fully agree with this Authority of my learned predecessor and hold that the appellant, being an employee of a hospital, i.e. Poly Clinic of the respondent Corporation, which is neither a commercial nor industrial A establishment; is not a 'workman' within the definition of section 2(b) of the Ordinance; therefore, her grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, was not maintainable.

6. For the reasons, as stated by me above, I maintain the impugned order and dismiss the present appeal. A. E.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.