1983 PLP 1072 (PLC(CS))
FAZAL,KARIM KHAN Versus PROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MAKARWAL & GULLAKHEL COLLIERIES
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1072 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | FAZAL,KARIM KHAN Versus PROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MAKARWAL & GULLAKHEL COLLIERIES |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII1 of 1969)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1072 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII1 of 1969)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1072 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1072 (PLC(CS)) (FAZAL,KARIM KHAN Versus PROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MAKARWAL & GULLAKHEL COLLIERIES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.
- Asghar Mahmood for Respondent..
- Date of hearing : 8th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 1 (3) (f) [as inserted vide Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (LI of 1979))‑Hospital-Establishment maintained for treatment of employees not as separate entity but a part and parcel of other establishment to which Ordinance applicable‑Not exempted‑Conversely a small workshop established for repairs of hospital equipments not being a separate entity‑Would not be industrial establishment but part of hospital exempt from operation of Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against the decision dated 25th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad whereby .the grievance petition of the appellant for his re instatement in service was dismissed.
2. The appellant was a dispenser in the hospital established by the respondent for the treatment of its employee's. On account of absence for more than ten days his services were terminated. His case is that he had sent an application for leave duly supported by a medical certi ficate but he was treated absent and terminated. The learned lower Court has dismissed the petition only on the ground that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the hospital wherein the appellant was employed. This is true that by the second amending Ordinance, 1979 clause ( f ) was added to section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to which, Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to any person employed by an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons, but it is necessary to see if such an establishment' is a separate entity or is a part and parcel of some other establishment to which Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 applies. The very order or termination of the appellant shows that the Hospital in which the appellant was employed is not an independent establishment. The order has been passed not by any Medical Superintendent; Health Director, other medical board, but the Project Manager, Makerwal Collieries. The hospital, therefore is a part of the Collieries and is being run by it. This is an admit ted fact that the hospital has been established for the treatment of ailin employees of the Collieries. Since Makerwal Collieries is an industrial estab lishment and an industry, its every portion and component part enjoys the e same status. Likewise if in a hospital a small workshop has been established for the repairs of the hospital equipments and machinery to workshop not being a separate entry would not be an industrial establish ment, but a part of hospital and would be exempted from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under clause ( f ) of section
1. The learned lower Court has, therefore, wrongly held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the hospital part of the respondent.
3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision on merits. A.E. Appeal accepted.