2008 PLP 58 (PLC)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.

This single order will dispose of Labour Appeal No.49 of 2005 titled "Syed Shahid Abbas and others v. The Chenab Club and another" and Labour Appeal No.264 of 2005 titled "Syed Shahid Abbas and others v. The Chenab Club and another" as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals.

2. The appellants herein were employees of Punjab Club(Guarantee) Limited who were retrenched from their employment through order passed in the month of May, 2001. The appellants challenged their retrenchment from employment through a petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission by invoking the provisions of section 22A(8)(g). Member, NIRC passed an order under section 22A resultantly transferred the petition to the learned Labour Court. An objection was raised among other objections by the respondents that the Punjab Club Guarantee Limited, Faisalabad is neither an industry as defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 nor an establishment under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Learned Labour Court vide order, dated 22-12-2004 observed that no union was registered with the Registrar Trade Unions and also found that appellants have failed to prove that appellants were victimized for their trade union activities. Learned Labour Court reached the conclusion that the petitioners/appellants have failed to, prove that the order of their -termination was, on account of their trade union activities, resultantly dismissed the petition, hence this appeal. Besides the petition under section 22-A(8)(g), the appellant also assailed the order of their termination through petition under section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Respondent moved an application under Order VII, rule, 11, C.P.C., for dismissal of petition on the questions of maintainability and limitation. Learned Labour Court vide order, dated 23-5-2005, dismissed the petition being barred by time. Appellants have challenged through filing these appeals, the orders dated 22-12-2004 and 23-5-2005.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the evidence available on record. The respondent has failed to prove that retrenchment was justified and that vires of Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 have not been violated. Learned counsel has then submitted that act of the respondents amounted to unfair labour practice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has fully supported the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

6. Respondent is a club duly registered as a company limited by guarantee. Such company (club) does not fall within the definition of commercial or industrial entity, as defined in section 2 is neither an industry nor private service, therefore, the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 are not applicable to the case of the employees of the club. Case of Managing Committee, the Punjab Club, Lahore v. The Registrar Trade Unions 1993 PLC 543 and Rawalpindi Club, Rawalpindi v. Registrar Trade Unions and 2 others 1993 PLC 760 in this respect can be referred.

7. Provisions of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance are not applicable to the employees of the club. While holding so, I am fortified' by the dictum of law laid down in the case Islamabad Club v. Punjab Labour Court No.2 and others PLD 1980 SC

307. The application filed by the petitioner under section 22A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before Labour Court was not competent and learned Labour Court had rightly held so. The order of Labour Court in this respect is not open to exception. Additionally the petitioners, have approached the Labour Court, for the second time, against their termination, after the elapse of four years. They were terminated on 23-5-2001 and grievance notice was issued on 17-1-2005. Such grievance was barred by limitation. The order passed by the learned Labour Court is neither illegal nor perverse. The same does not call for interference.

8. For the foregoing, these appeals are without any merit and are dismissed as such. S.A.K./S-144/L Appeals dismissed.