ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN - This appeal challenges the judgement dated 28.06.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petitions filed by the appellants and three other colleagues were dismissed as unmaintainable.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that some permanent Teachers in the Municipal Corporation Faisalabad's School proceeded on Ieave and the appellants were inducted against these leave vacancies temporarily. After serving for sometime the services of the appellants were- dispensed with arbitrarily. They challenged their termination before the Labour Court through separate grievance petitions which were dismissed through a single consolidated judgment on the grounds, inter alia, that they have not proved to be workmen as such the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain their petitions.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Court below has misinterpreted the law on the point. The fact of the matter is that the appellants were "Badlis" and after rendering service for the mandatory period as envisaged in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, they had attained permanent status and as such could not have been ousted/terminated in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.
4. Conversely, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents was that the Labour Laws are not applicable to the educational institutions and the appellants were not workmen.
5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
6. Even if one keeps aside the question of whether the appellants had acquired the status of Badlis or not, they have to first establish that they are workmen or workmen, A school teacher mainly impart knowledge to his/her students. If at all he had to do something manually by writing some lessons on the black board it is a sma ll part of the assignment. The main and substantial part of his job is imparting knowledge to the students. In teaching his mental faculties are more involved than the physical labour. A workman has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which shortly reads:- "workman" means any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for hire or reward."
7. A Teacher by no stretch of imagination can be employed to do skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical job as is visible from the educational degrees/certificates possessed by the appellants.
They are PTC, CT, Teachers which is purely a certificate of training to impart knowledge and not of manual or clerical job so therefore, they cannot be termed as workman and the grievance petitions appear to have been rightly dismissed.
8. An identical matter came before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Board of Governors Aitchison College, Lahore v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others. The Hon'ble apex Court-ruled:- "Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)-~Term 'worker' or workman-Employees of educational institutions-Status-Educational institution is neither an industry, nor it falls within the definition of industrial establishment, therefore, its employees cannot be considered to be workers or workmen either under Industrial and Commercial Equipment - (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or under the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969."
9. The impugned judgment has been perused with care and caution and it appears to be indeed well- reasoned. The authorities referred by the learned counsel for the appellants do not appear to be germane to the point in issue.
10. In this view the matter, the appeal is sans merits and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.