1984 PLP 26 (PLC)
BADAR DIN Versus THE WEST PAKISTAN SOCIETY FOR THE REHABILITATION OF DISABLED
| Citation | 1984 PLP 26 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BADAR DIN Versus THE WEST PAKISTAN SOCIETY FOR THE REHABILITATION OF DISABLED |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 26 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 26 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 26 (PLC) (BADAR DIN Versus THE WEST PAKISTAN SOCIETY FOR THE REHABILITATION OF DISABLED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Qadir for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 4th July, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Ss. 2(xxii) & 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (f) (i) read with Payment of Wages Act (IV of 1936), S. 2(f) and S. O. 12(5)‑ .... "Industry"‑Industrial establishment‑West Pakistan Society for Rehabilitation of Disabled with honorary‑Executive Members Main purpose to provide disabled persons maximum opportunity to secure preventive, remedial and rehabilitative treatment by experts rendering honorary services‑Not depending upon co‑operation between labour and capital and no object of production, distribution or consumption of wealth‑Not an "industry" under S. 2 (xxh) of Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969‑Workshop of society where artificial limbs manufactured by workers employed for hire or reward and such limbs either used by disabled persons or sold to them‑ Such workshop, held, an industrial establishment under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Worker employed in such workshop, held, had a right guaranteed under Standing Orders Ordinance and Labour Court would have jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition against termination of his service. K. G. Old Principal, Christiu Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and 6 others P L D 1976 Lah. 1097 rel.
Judgment & Decree
5. As soon as a disabled person is admitted, he is examined by a team of professional rehabilitation workers like Medical Officer, Surgeon, Social Workers, physiotherapist and vocational trainees etc Thereafter, the treat ment follows. There are different departments. In one of the departments artificial limbs are manufactured and fitted on the person of the disabled. Thereafter, he is sent to the Vocational Centre to enable him to rehabilitate himself in life by doing a particular job. Psychological treatment is also given to adjust him with his family and the society in which he moved. Almost all the experts of the higher level provide, their services to the society on honorary basis.
6. In the light of the above. it has to be determined whether the Society is an industry under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or an industrial establishment under the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In the case K. G. Old Principal Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and 6 others (P L D 1976 Lah, 1097) it was held :‑‑ "The upshot of the entire discussion is that the expression, "Business, Trade, Manufacture, Calling Service, Employment or Occupation" in the definition of Industrial Relations Ordinance, is not in its ordinary dictionary meaning but in its popular and conventional meaning. 1n the context of industrial and Labour laws, these expressions apply to any enterprise which is organised and is systematic depending substantially, if not entirely, on the co‑operation between‑‑Labour and capital, and having as its object production, distribution and consumption of wealth, or the production or provision of material services. The enterprise as a whole has to be looked at to find out its raison d' etre, and any part of it' which is incidental, ancillary or an adjunct cannot determine the character of the whole."
7. Applying the above test it has to be determined whether the respondent society is an industry under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 11969, The main purpose of the respondent society, which is run by office‑bearers, who are honorary members of the society, is to provide disabled people with the maximum opportunity to secure, preventive, remedial and rehabilitative treatment according to their needs so that their capacity for useful work is restored and they are enabled to share the life of the com munity to the fullest extent possible. The doctor etc. do not charge any fees. In fact all the experts who treat the disabled people, render their services honorarly. All the executive members of the Society also perform their duties without hire or reward, therefore, the Society does not depend upon the co‑operation between Labour and capital. The object of the Society has nothing to do with the production, distribution or consumption of wealth but it is to rehabilitate the disabled people in their life. Therefore, it can f not be said that the said Society is an industry under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
8. Now the next point for determination is as to whether the respon dent Society is an industrial establishment under the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Industrial establishment is defined as under :‑ "Industrial establishment" means (i) an industrial establishment as defined in clause (if) of section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936) ; or (ii) a factory as defined in clause (j) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) ; or (iii) a railway as defined in clause (4) of section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890) ; or (iv) the establishment of a contractor who, directly or indirectly, employs workmen in connection with the execution of a contract to which he is a party, and includes the premises in which, or the site at which any process connected with such execution is carried on ; or (v) the establishment of person who directly or indirectly, employs workmen in connection with any construction industry. Industrial establishment under the Payment of Wages Act is defined as under :‑ "industrial establishment" means any‑ (a) tramway or motor omnibus service ; (b) dock, wharf or jetty ; (c) inland steam‑vessel ; . . (d) mine, quarry or oil‑field ; (e) plantation ; (f) workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view to their use, transport or sale ; (g) establishment of a contractor who, directly or indirectly, employs persons in any industrial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical labour for hire or reward in includes the premises in which or the site at which, any process connected with such execution is carried on.
9. According to clause (f) above, a workshop or other establishment in which articles are produced, adapted or manufactured with a view to their use, transport or sale, would make that workshop or other establish ment an industrial establishment. In the instant case I find that only the administrative office or the workshop where artificial limbs are manufactured, employs workers for hire or reward. The artificial limbs, so produced are either used by the disabled persons or are sold to them. Therefore, the workshop would be an industrial establishment within the meaning of ciaus2 (f) of section 2 of the Payment of Wages Act and as such would also be an industrial establishment under the W. P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1W. Under these circumstances, the appellant would have, a right guaranteed or secured to him under the aforementioned Ordinance and as such the Labour Court would have jurisdic tion to entertain the petition.
10. I accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and remand the case back to it for decision afresh in accordance with law. A. E, Appeal allowed.