2001 PLP 39 (PLC)

4. Learned counsel for the respondent next submitted that the learned Labour Court was justified in dismissing the application under section 25‑A, as the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 were not applicable. Reference was made by him to section 1(3)(f), which is an amendment made in 1979, after ten years of the promulgation of the I.R.O., 1969. He refers to section 1(3)(f) which says that (3) it shall not apply to any person‑‑employed‑‑(f) by an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons. Reference was also made to section 3 of the same Amendment Ordinance whereby even the registration of trade union stood cancelled. The relevant provisions reads as under:‑‑ "(3) Cancellation of registration of Trade Union. ‑‑‑Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (XXIII of 1969), the registration of, and the certificate of registration issued to the registered Trade Unions in any establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons shall stand cancelled." Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even the Standing. Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable as the respondent is not a commercial establishment.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent took me through the record, the written statement and various documents, submitted alongwith it. . R/ l is a certificate of registration, dated 30‑1‑1992, issued by the Directorate of ; Social Welfare, Government of Sindh, which shows that the respondent has been registered under the Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961. He also referred to schedule attached to the said Registration Ordinance. Items Nos. l2 and 13 of the said schedule relate 'to the welfare and rehabilitation of patients and welfare of the aged and infirm. A reference was also made to Annexure R/4 which is a memorandum of association and rules and regulations of the MA‑Ayesha Memorial Centre, the respondent. Under heading, "aims and object", it is stated that, "the MA Ayehsa Memorial Centre is a non‑profit voluntary organization for the welfare of physically handicapped established. "(4) To provide service for painful conditions such as Rheumatoid arthritis, stiff joints, Lumbago and other orthepedic ailments." He also referred to Annexures R/2 and' R/3, two‑balance sheets for the years 1996 and 1997. A cursory glance to the said balance sheets will show "the following figures, which are relevant for‑ the present case:‑‑- 1996 Zakat Rs.2,22,890,00 Donation Rs.1,857,246,00 Defiction (in income) Rs.6,38,390.30. 1997 Zakat Rs.1,88,904.00 Donations Rs.1,969.662.00 Defiction (in income) .... Rs.74,702.40. The reply, filed by the applicants, to the written statement including the preliminary objections, wherein none of the documents, annexed with the written statement which is on oath, was challenged nor they produced any document rebuttal thereof.

6. Learned counsel for 'the respondent referred to a number of authorities that the. "Hospital" establishment have been exempted from the application of the I.R.O. 1969, and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, reported as Women Christian Hospital v., Mst. Sakina Yonis (1990 PLC 371), given by Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab and another one reported as Mst. Sakina Younas v. Administrator, Woman's Christian Hospital, Multan and 2 others (1991 PLC 798), which is a Lahore High Court Judgment by Riaz Ahmed, T. (now Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistani) whereby the Constitutional petition against the decision of Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab, was dismissed. I may also refer to my own Judgment in the case of Pakistan Telecom Foundation v. Naveed Nayar (in Appeals Nos.KAR‑349 and 350 of 1998), decided on 23‑2‑1999, wherein, after referring to the case of Sakina Younas, and a case reported as Ghousia Iqrar v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (1984 PLC 1400), which is also to the same effect, it was held by me that, "in view of the above legal position, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter to entertain the application under section 25‑A; LR.O., 1969. The impugned order, is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.

7. In view of the facts and law, referred to above, the learned Labour Court was quite justified in deciding matter on the basis of the documentary evidence, already on record. In fact, the learned Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the decision (described as order), passed by the learned Labour Court No.V, is maintained and the revisions are dismissed. Announced in open Court, this 26th October, 1999. H.B.T./453/K(L. Trib) Revisions dismissed.