1982 PLP 535 (PLC)

"In the course of the arguments they have appreciated the fact that this question was decided by the Labour Court with having sufficient evidence on the question of fact involved. They, therefore, agree that the impugned order of the Labour Court and of necessity the judgment of the learned single Judge, be set aside and the matter remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision." In obedience to the order of the Honourable Division Bench of the High Court, additional evidence adduced by the parties was recorded by this Court. Arguments were addressed by Mr. S. P. Lodhi, learned representative for the applicant union, as also Mr. S. M. Yakoob, learned representative for the respondent. After considering the argu ments and the evidence together with the case law produced by both the learned representatives, I have come to the following conclusion. Mr. S. P. Lodhi strenuously tried to establish that the respondent organisation is engaged in an organised activity possessing the triple element of systematic activity, organised co‑operation between employer and employees and production and distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes. He invited my attention to a volume of documents which have been produced in evidence to substantiate his arguments that the respondent 'foundation ‑‑ is an enterprise which is organized and is systematic defending substantially on the co‑operation between labour and capital, and it has the object of production, distribution and consumption of wealth besides production and provision of material services. Reliance was placed on the following authorities:‑ 1. 1977 P L C 133 ; 1973 P L C 337; 1976 P L C 905; 1975 PLC 868 ; 1977 P L C 13 ; 1976 P L C 103 ; 1974 PLC 98, Supreme Court Cases 1978 Volume II p. 123 and Writ Petition No. 21/91 of 1976 of the Lahore High Court. Mr. S. P. Lodhi also carried me through the long standing' controversy which existed in respect of the interpretation of the "term industry". He also referred to various documents in connection with the establish ment and function of the respondent organisation. On the other hand Mr. S. M. Yakoob learned counsel for the respondent foundation mainly relied on the elaborate judgment delivered by My Lord Mr. Justice B. G. M. Qazi to which reference has already been made in the earlier portion 'ref this order and which has been reported as 1980 P L C page

305. Reliance was also placed on 1981 P L C 330, 1981 P L C 403 and P L D 1976 Lab. 1097. Order dated 3rd August, (977 passed by Mr. Saeed Ahmad, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore was also cited. I have carefully gone through the case‑law cited by both the parties and with utmost respect to the views expressed in the previous judgment. I am of the humble opinion that my Lord Mr. Justice B.. G. M. Qazi in his elaborate judgment reviewed almost the whole case laws including Indian law on the point of interpretation of the term "Industry", vis- -vis educational institutions, etc. The learned Judge has also discussed at length the functions and the constitution of the respondent foundation. As such it is not necessary for this Court to trace out the history of the respondent foundation, and the object for which it was established as such exercise would be nothing but a repetition of admitted facts. It would be suffice for this Court to see as to whether in the light of the evidence and the case law cited by both the parties, the respondent Foundation is an 'industry' or not: The evidence produced by both the parties has brought nothing new and it manifestly indicates that the functions of the respondent organisa tion are nothing but as described in section (6) of the National Book Foundation Act, 1972 and which are reproduced as under ‑‑ (a) to receive any money or financial grants from the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, Local bodies and any statutory or non‑statutory Corporation (b) to collect, accept or otherwise receive from any person, body ; association, institution or organisation any subscription or donation made to the foundation ; (c) to undertake writing of book and to encourage writers to produce good book ; (d) to undertake the translation of foreign and locally produced, books into the national and regional language of the country and vice versa ; (e) to arrange the original publication and reproduction of local books as well as those published abroad ; (f) to import foreign books and to undertake the distribution of books among the educational institutions and the general public. (g) to encourage the writers and the book trade in general in the production of book and making them available to the students and the general public at moderate prices ; (h) to provide technical know how and assistance and to take other steps aimed at fostering interest in books and in reading ; and (i) to initiate such other activities and programmes as may assist the task of book development, book promotion, advancement of literacy and dissemination of knowledge by means of the printed works." , ‑ A careful study of the evidence available on record indicates that the respondent organisation is a body controlled by the Federal Government and it has been established with the main view to provide educational books to the students at cheap rates. That the foundation runs on no profits no loss basis and that in its effort to provide cheap books to the students community, recurring losses are being faced by it. There is no A evidence to suggest that the object of the respondent organisation is productions, distributions, and consumption of wealth, or the production or provision of material services with a view to gain profit. The evidence further shows that the respondent organisation is not covered with the term "industry" as 'used in its popular and conventional meaning. While holding that the respondent organisation is not an "industry" My Lord Mr. Justice B. G. N. Qazi in his Judgment referred to as above also held that the members of the applicant Union were merely concerned with the ancillary and incidental work of printing etc. and were not directly concerned with the purposes for which the foundation had been established. Such finding of Mr. Justice Qazi is supported by cross‑examination of Shoukat Ali, General Secretary of the appellant union. Said Shoukat Ali also admitted that there is no share or interest ‑of ‑any private body in the respondent foundation and it is solely established and run by the Government. He also admitted that the Central Government gave grants and advance loans to the respondent foundation. It is, therefore, clear that the evidence recorded by the Court in obedience to the remand order has brought nothing new but on the contrary the perusal of the said evidence gives full support to the elaborate and exhaustive Judgment delivered by my, Lord Mr. Justice B. G. N. Kazi. Under the circumstances I have come to , the conclusion that the respondent foundation is not an "industry" as defined by the

1. R. O., 1969. the natural consequence is that the Labour Laws are not applicable to the respondent foundation and the registration of the present union was illegal. The application is, therefore, hereby dismissed.