2001 PLP 479 (PLC)

Syed Abdul Manan for Appellant. Muhammad Ayub Khattak for Respondent. Niaz Hussain Shah son of Sarwar Shah, a dispenser employed in. Employees Social Security Institution at Haripur has filed this appeal under section 37(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the judgment dated 13‑5‑1999 of Labour Court Haripur whereby his grievance petition under section 25(A) of the I.R.O. has been dismissed and his termination order dated 18‑2‑1997 was upheld.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that he being a permanent workman, his services were terminated without notice, without charge‑sheet and without inquiry. It was pleaded in defence that the appointment of the petitioner being against the prescribed rules and procedure was void ab initio, for, he was appointed under the direction of Minister. That sixty two other employees were similarly removed from service out of whom thirty nine had filed writ petitions before the High Court which were dismissed in limine on 7‑7‑1997. The plea of respondents prevailed with the trial Court. The main objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioner was specifically employed as dispenser in the hospital of the institution which does not fall within the definition of industrial and commercial organization. That the employees of hospital, not run on commercial basis, could not be termed as workmen and have been specifically excluded from the ambit of the labour laws.

3. A similar case but pertaining to Punjab Employees Social Security Institution had come before Lahore High Court in PLD 1979 Lahore 448 where the institution had been considered to be an industry but the dispute therein was between the employees of the institution and the management. Such employees could be of different nature holding different jobs but the case of the present appellant is distinguishable to the effect that the application of the Ordinance under section 1(3)(f) of the Ordinance, is excluded where a person is employed by an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons.

4. The appellant, from day one (sic) was employed in the hospital with a specialized knowledge and expertise of a dispenser. One has least to say that such hospital or the institution is not a commercial organization and is a hospital as such giving free treatment to sick and infirm. With respect to his special and specialized appointment, he cannot be dubbed as a workman and the Ordinance is not applicable to them.

5. A similar situation had come before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in "Punjab Employees Social Security v. Ashar Adil" where it was not only held that the institution could not be treated as commercial institution but the application of the Ordinance was held ousted with reference to section 1(3)(f) of I.R.O. 1969. In the circumstances of the present case and with reference to the nature of job of the appellant, I find myself in perfect agreement with the Punjab Tribunal.

6. So far as "PLD 1979 Lahore 448" is concerned, it was a decision in Writ Petition No 2191 of 1076, decided on 27‑1‑1979 which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1986 SCMR 618 whereby the Single Bench judgment of the Hi h Court was set aside and the writ issued therein was recalled.

7. In view of the discussion, I hold that the institution in question was not an industrial or commercial organization and further that the I.R.O. was not applicable to the appellant under section 1(3)(f) of the I.R.O. The appeal is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./3/N.‑W.F.P.(L. Trib.) Appeal dismissed.