2001 PLP 24 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss1(3)(t), 2(xxviii), 25‑A & 37(3)‑‑‑Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965), S.5‑‑‑Grievance petition ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Employee serving the Social Security Institution, had filed .grievance petition before Labour Court against termination of his services‑‑‑Social Security Institution was an Establishment set up for treating and care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally retarted people and said establishment could not be treated as a "commercial establishment" or an "industrial institution"‑‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 being not applicable to the case of the employee under S.1(3)(f) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, who otherwise was also not a workman, grievance petition before Labour Court was not maintainable‑‑‑Employee could take recourse to Service Tribunal and not to other forum for redressal of his grievance. Saeed Waraich for Appellants. H. R. Haider for Respondents. Mr. Ashar Adil was working with the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, as Assistant Accounts Officer, having been (sic) on 28‑6‑1995, and his services were terminated on (sic). He filed grievance petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968, on 5‑9‑1998; and the learned Labour Court No. l Lahore,, presided over by Mr. Riaz‑ul‑Hassan Alvi, accepted the grievance petition, by a decision rendered on 3‑6‑1999. He was ordered to be paid 50% back benefits. Punjab Employees Social Security, through its Commissioner, preferred the present appeal on 5‑7‑1999. I would not venture to go into recapitulation of the whole history and entire facts of the case, and would suffice to confine my verdict to the finding that the Labour Court in my considered opinion, lacked competence in the matter. Social Security Institution is undoubtedly and establishment set up for treatment and care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally retarded people, and under section 1(3)(f) of the Ordinance it could not be treated as a commercial establishment or an industrial institution. Such finding was recorded by this Tribunal in as back as 1976, in a case reported as 1976 PLC 905 and in a number of other cases. The august apex Court of the country, in the ruling reported as 1996 SCMR 618, in a case decided on 13‑11‑1985, had recorded an express finding on the subject being that the Social Security Institution could in no manner be treated as 'industry', as defined in section 2(14), I.R.O., 1969. This Tribunal had quite recently on 15‑11‑1999 adopted the same view, while disposing of Appeals Nos.QSA‑286 and 287 of 1999. Provisions of the I.R.O., 1969, and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as such are not applicable to the employees of the institution.

2. Besides, Mr. Ashar Adil, otherwise also could not claim to be a workman, as he was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.7,000, at the time of his removal from service, and nature of his duties was such that the same could not be characterized as menial or manual.

3. There was yet another aspect. The Institution is a Government Organization and its employees are public servants, as provided by section 5, Social Security Ordinance, 1965. They could have recourse to the Service Tribunal and to no other forum for redressal of their grievance, as regards terms and conditions of their service. As such, I remain in no manner of doubt that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, and the jurisdiction was assumed by going too out of the way, and on no, valid premises and lawful basis. Impugned decision, dated 3‑6‑1999 is set aside, the appeal is accepted, although without any order as to costs.

4. So, obviously the decision, dated 3‑6‑1999 cannot legally be endorsed and upheld as a lawfully sustainable decision; its violation, if any on the part of the establishment, as alleged by the employee, could also not be taken cognizance of either by the Labour Court or by this Tribunal. The contempt proceedings launched by Mr. Ashar Adil on 2‑12‑1999, as such, could not be regarded as a validly initiated process, and no adverse action A could be taken against the Authorities of the Institution. I proceed to dismiss the contempt petition as well. H.B.T./8/P. (Lab. Trib) Appeal accepted.