1976 PLP 377 (PLC)

Ch. M. Anwar for Appellant. Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui for Respondent. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 22-5-1975 passed by, the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a petition for re-instatement filed by the appellant under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Petition was rejected. Hence this appeal. Case was not argued on behalf of both the parties. Written arguments were filed on behalf of both the parties. I have perused these arguments and nave gone through the file of the Junior Labour Court, as well as the impugned order. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the Pakistan National Centre established a Section of Public Relations for the financial year 1974-75. A post of Assistant was created alongwith other posts in that section. After a year that section was closed. Appellant was attached to the Adviser, Public Relations. Adviser Public Relations was on contract of one year. After a year his services were no more required. Therefore, he left the job and staff attached to hire was absorbed in other branches but appellant's, services were terminated as no more required. Contention of the appellant is that he worked with the Pakistan National, Centre as its Programme Assistant for one year. Therefore, he was a per manent employee. His services could not be terminated without any, misconduct on his part as is required under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that appellant was, recruited as a purer temporary employee and an undertaking to that effect was taken from him. Therefore, his service could be terminated at any time. In the second place the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Pakistan National Centre is neither an Industrial Establishment and nor Commercial Establishment as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Therefore I. R. O., 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to Pakistan National Centre. Pakistan National Centre was registered under the Societies Act and it has got nothing to do with profit, etc. In the third place it has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that by virtue of notification Pakistan National Centre has been declared to be a Government department and now its employees have become Civil Servants. Tribunal set up under the Civil Servants Act has got the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the instant case as the appellant has become a civil servant. I deem it proper to deal with the second contention first. Definition of Industry is very wide. An organization set up at public expense to render services to the community at large industry although the profit motive is absent. Profit motive is not essential for an industry as contemplated by the Act. Municipal Committee undertakes to make roads and arrange for the sanitation, run the hospitals and schools. Such functions can be undertaken by private concern or individual as well. They are, therefore, undertaking and can be classed as industry and persons employed in such activities are workmen. Pakistan National Centre as is claimed is engaged in projecting programmes and ideas which should lead to the object of integration of Pakistan. So this is an undertaking by which a great service is being rendered, to the community at large. So. Pakistan National Centre falls under the definition of Industry. The Industrial Relations Ordinance and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 are very much applicable to it. Any contract which is against law is void under the Contract Act. So the undertaking given by the appellant that his g job is purely temporary is not valid. Appellant has worked on a job which was likely to last for more than 9 months. Therefore, he was a permanent worker. So far as third contention of the appellant is concerned, he has tried to blow hot and cold in one breath. On the one hand he has said that as Pakistan National Centre was registered under the Societies Act and is not working on profit basis, therefore, this is not an industry. I have answered this contention fully above. At the same time learned counsel for the respondent claims that as Pakistan National Centre ha, become a Government Department, therefore, its employees are governed by Civil Servants Act. Every Civil Servant is not a public servant. All public servants who are engaged in the administration of State fall out of the purview of Industrial Relations Ordinance. Government employees who are employed for welfare of the State fall under the purview of I. R. O., 1969. Appellant neither is a Q public servant nor he is engaged in the administration of the State. Industrial Relations Ordinance as well as Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance are applicable to him and to the Pakistan National Centre. Learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn my attention that appellant did not prove himself to be a workman before the Junior Labour Court. This is admitted position of the parties that he was an Assistant, in no way falling under the definition of an employer. So there was no need to prove this fact. Exhibit P. B. is an office order which was issued to the appellant by the Administrative Officer, who is also respondent No. 2, by which it has been admitted that respondent is employed as Assistant in the Pakistan National Centre, Head Office, and not Assistant to the Adviser Public Relations. That means his service was not temporary. He was a permanent employee. If this section was closed he should have been absorbed in other sections as an Assistant or in a post equivalent to the post of Assistant, as was done in the case of other employees of this section. In that view of the matter I am inclined to interfere into the order of the Junior Labour Court and I set it aside and accept the appeal. Appellant is entitled to back wages. He should be given duty within 7 days.