1976 PLP 876 (PLC(CS))

A. M. Qureshi for Petitioner. Moinuddin for Respondent. Muzaffar Hussain K. G. Mehmood was employed as Senior Clerk by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. On 18th February 1972 he was dismissed from service with immediate effect allegedlly on the basis of established charges of gross misconduct, gross insubordination, indiscipline, destruction of official documents, failure to perform his duty properly, exceeding his powers and gross negligence in the performance of his duties.

2. On 2nd August 1972 the petitioner filed the under-consideration petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore praying that the aforesaid order of his dismissal from service might be set aside and he be re-instated without any break of service with all benefits of service and payment of up-to-date dues with compensation etc. He contended in the under-consideration application that he was the founder President of the Lahore Secondary Board Employees' Union and he had voiced and launched a relentless campaign against the corruption and malpractices in the Board and consequently the respondent and his officers harboured grudge and malice against the petitioner and they manoeuvred the charges of misconduct against him with a view to victimise him for his Trade Union activities and his impugned dismissal was outcome of such victimization.

3. The respondent vehemently resisted the petition filed by the petitioner and pleaded inter alia that the same was not legally competent, in as much as the I.R.O., 1969 and the other labour law, were not applicable to the employees of the Board as the Board was neither Industry nor Industrial or Commercial Establishment. The employees of the Board were not work men within the meaning of the I.R.O., 1969. It was also contended that the petition was barred by limitation. On merits it was pleaded that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. He was duly placed under suspension and charge-sheeted. Mr. Salah ud-Din Hanif a retired District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Anti-Corrupt on was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after duly conducting the enquiry Held the petitioner guilty of various charges. The show-cause notice was duly served to the respondent and the competent Authority after considering his explanation, ordered his dismissal in accordance with the statutory re gulations of the Board.

4. In this case my learned predecessor recorded statements of 3 witnesses produces by the petitioner.

5. Subsequently the petitioner's case was dismissed for default on various occasions. It has lastly been restored,-vide my order, dated 4th February 1975. I have heard arguments of the parties on the maintain ability of the application.

6. In this case as already stated the respondent is the Board of Inter mediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The petitioner is an ex-senior clerk of the said Board. Through the present petition he has challenged his dismissal from service which has been ordered on the charges of misconduct. At the relevant time i.e. at the time of institution of the under consideration petition a workman could apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement. It has not been specifically alleged in the application as to which guaranteed or secured right of the petitioner by or under any law or any award or settlement has been violated in this case. Moreover only a workman within meaning of the I.R.O. had the locus standi at the relevant time to file an application under section

34. Expression "workman has been defined in section 23 ibid. According to this de finition any person net falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or an Industry for hire, and reward in the work man. The express in "Industry and Establishment" have also been defines in section 2 ibid. The functions and powers of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education are to organise, regulate develop and control Intermediate Education and Secondary Education. In A I R 1963 S C 1873 while considering she definitions of "industry", "industrial dispute" and then "workman" it was held that institutions like University and such other "Educational Institutions" which have been established primarily for the purpose of imparting education are not industry Keeping in view the functions and powers of the Board of Secondary Education, Lahore. It would transpire that this Board is also not an industry. The petitioner is accordingly not a workman within the meaning of the I. R. O. It is also noteworthy that in order to succeed in this case the petitioner is required to show that his impugned dismissal wash illegal on account of being violative of the provisions of the West Pakistani Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Unless it is so shown the question of the enforcement of right secured by or under any law does not arise. As a matter of fact the petitioner's case is devoid of any merit in this behalf as well. The Board of Secondary Educa tion, Lahore is neither an industrial establishment nor a commercial establish ment within the meaning of the Standing Order, 1968. It has been so held by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in its judgment dated 25th September 1972 In re: Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through its Chairman v. Altaf Rasul Ex-Junior Clerk of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore.

7. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore is a statutory body having been constituted under the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education) Lahore Ordinance, 1961. Under section 19 of the said Ordinance, Board has made regulations. The dis missal of the petitioner purports to have been made under Regulation VII.11 of the Board's Calendar. It is provided in the first proviso to section 1(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to Industrial and Commercial Establishments carried on by or under authority of the Central or any Provincial Government where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein. In the circumstances even if we assume, by any stretch of imagination, that the Board is an Industrial and Commer cial Establishment, the Standing Orders Ordinance would not apply in view of the statutory rules, regulations of service conduct or discipline B which are applicable to the employees of the Board. The petitioner would therefore not appear to be competent to bring his grievance in respect of any tight allegedly guaranteed or secured to him under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

8. In the light of what has been said above, it is concluded that the under consideration petition is not legally competent and is accordingly dismissed.