1997 PLP 613 (PLC)

Abdul Hakim Awan for Appellant. Mushtaq Mehdi Akhtar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1996. The appeal is directed against the decision dated 29‑9‑1994, rendered by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, dismissing the grievance petition of Muhammad Akram Chaudhry, filed under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Following are briefly the facts:‑

2. Muhammad Akram Chaudhry was appointed as Senior School Teacher in Quaid‑i‑Azam Divisional Public School, Gujranwala, on 27‑8‑1988, and he was dismissed from service on 4‑3‑1993. This order, according to him, was without lawful authority, as also ineffective against his rights, as he had not been served with a show‑cause notice, or a charge -sheet, nor had he been made to face an inquiry, and thus had been condemned unheard. According to him, he was workman, and the Institute he was serving was a commercial and industrial institution, to the employees of which Labour Laws were applicable.

3. These averments of the appellant, petitioner before the Labour Court, were controverted by the respondent, the Administration of the Public School, according to which, Muhammad Akram Chaudhry could not claim to be a workman and could not, at the same time, invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance, if any. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the respondent that the petitioner's performance was not upto the mark and he did not improve it in spite of warnings. He could not qualify the B.Ed. Examination, during his entire career and remained on probation throughout. The assertion that he was not heard has no basis, as he appeared before the Discipline Committee of the Institute on 24‑1‑1093 and was made aware of the dissatisfaction of the Institute as regards his proficiency, as also the charges against him, but he could not satisfy the Committee, and in accordance with the recommendations of the Discipline Committee, his services were terminated, in the best interests of the institution, on 4‑3‑1993.

4. The plea of the petitioner before the Labour Court, appellant before this forum, made to the effect that the School is being run on commercial or industrial basis cannot be endorsed, by any stretch of imagination. He had been recruited in the Senior Section and subsequently shifted to the Junior Section, because of lack of ability; and the allegation that this had been done by the Principal in collusion with the Headmistress could not be up‑held. The appellant has been imparting education to the students and could in no manner claim that he has been doing exclusively a clerical work or a manual job, as it was only intellectual exercise. Quaid‑i‑Azam Educational Trust has been running the school as a Public School, on the strength of subscriptions, contributions, donations, grants, gifts, aids, etc., besides the fees charged from the students. The mere fact that the appellant has been writing digits and words on black boards and on the exercise books of the students, and making corrections with hands, does not obviously involve any manual or clerical labour, and he could not claim to be a workman, particularly as he was in BS‑

17. The manual or clerical work, if any, was only incidental to the main work of the appellant, who was entrusted with the task of imparting education to the students. How could it be averred that it was a private P institution, with commercial or industrial basis. It has rightly been observed be the learned Labour Court that the statement made by the teacher would resolve the controversy in question. It was an educational institution, being run by a Trust, and Mr. Muhammad Akram was functioning as a teacher in promoting the cause of education. It was not a unit of the joint stock company, falling within the definition of a commercial establishment, nor was any manufacturing process or any industrial activity being undertaken within the premises of the Institute. Aid of the provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, or The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could not be invoked by the appellant in his favour, who could not have recourse to the Labour Court, by filing a grievance petition, which was not at all maintainable.

5. The learned lower Court had arrived at a correct conclusion and had rightly dismissed the grievance petition of Mr. Muhammad Akram, whose appeal similarly has no force, whatever; and it is hereby dismissed, with costs throughout, as for redressal of this grievance the appellant has chosen throughout a wrong forum. H.B.T./878/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.