ASAD MUNIR (MEMBER).--- Sandal College, Millat Road, Faisalabad ("the College"), is an educational institution which is run by a Board of Governors with the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, as its President. The respondent, Shahid Majeed Aslam, who holds a Master's Degree in History and Pakistan Studies from the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, was vide letter dated 14-11- 2006 appointed as a Pakistan Studies Teacher in the said college for a period of 3 years Subsequently, the respondent's contract was extended for two (2) years with effect from 27-8-2009 whereafter vide order dated 27-4-2011 his contract was extended for a further period of three (3) years
2. Pursuant to a complaint received, the respondent's explanation was sought by appellant No,1, Principal, Sandal College, Faisalabad, through her letter dated 13-4-2011 (Exh.R-9), which is reproduced below:--- "Mr. Shahid Majeed Aslam S.St. Teacher, Sandal College, Faisalabad.
' No,205/Sec/1 Dated 13-4-2011 ' Subject: EXPLANATION ' It has been reported by the examination cell that on 9th April, 2011 (Saturday) 2nd entry test session 2011-12 was being conducted. During 2nd paper (English), you entered examination room, took away the objective paper of two students namely:
(1) Muhammad Usman son of Ali Imran 9th Class
(2) Noor-ul-Rehman son of Saeed-ur-Rehman 6th Class ' You again entered the examination room and handed over the solved papers to the above mentioned students.
' The matter was being investigated by the paper checkers when they found difference in the hand writing of the above mentioned students. The same was verified from the students and they confirmed it.
' You did all this with bad intention and indulged yourself in an indecent and illegal act, which lowered the prestige of the institution and dignity of the teaching faculty.
' You are required to submit your explanation to the undersigned within next 24 hours ' Signed ' (Nargis Faruq) Principal."
3. The respondent gave his reply vide letter dated 14-4-2011 (Exh.R-10) which reads as under:--- "The Principal, ' Sandal College, Faisalabad.
' Subject: Explanation Dear Madam, ' With reference to your letter No,205/Sc/11 dated 13-4-2011, it is submitted that this unwanted incident happened just to support a student so he could get admission in this prestigious institution.
' Madam, I could not foresee the intensity of this act, I am very much grieved and assure you that I will be careful in future.
' I hope, you would accept this explanation on humanitarian grounds. I shall be highly grateful to you for this act of kindness.
' Yours sincerely, ' Signed 14-4-2011 ' Shahid Majeed Aslam ' Teacher Social Studies."
4. The respondent's explanation was not found satisfactory and a three-member inquiry committee was formed to inquire into the incident. Through its report dated 28-4-2011 (Exh.R-11), the inquiry committee found the respondent guilty of the malpractice of solving papers of two students in the admission test for Class 6th and Class 9th on the basis of the evidence produced before it particularly the respondent's admission in his reply dated 14-4-2011, reproduced above. On the basis of its findings, the Inquiry Committee also recommended the termination of the respondent's services with immediate effect. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the President, Board of Governors/Commissioner, Faisalabad Division. After hearing the respondent in person on 2-6-2011, the President, Board of Governors/Commissioner, Faisalabad Division approved the termination of the respondent's services as is evidenced from letter dated 6-6-2011 issued on his behalf by the Assistant Commissioner (R). Resultantly, the appellant No,1 informed the respondent through her letter dated 7-6-2011 (Exh.R-14) that his services were terminated with immediate effect. Against his termination from service, the respondent filed an appeal before the Board of Governors who held a meeting on 8-10-2011 and rejected the appeal as was communicated vide appellant No,l's letter dated 27-10-2011 (Exh.R-13).
' Thereafter, the respondent served a grievance notice dated 23-10-2011 and then on 22-11-2011, filed a grievance petition whereby he challenged his termination vide order dated 7-6-2011 to seek his reinstatement in service with back-benefits. By its order dated 14-2-2013, the Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, has accepted the respondent's grievance petition and has reinstated the respondent in service primarily on the ground that the respondent has been unfairly punished as others also involved in "this immoral and illegal practice" have been let off.
5. Assailing the legality and propriety of the learned Labour Court's order dated 14-2-2013, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the respondent's grievance petition as being a teacher, the respondent does not fall within the definition of a workman given in section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Ordinance, 1968 ("the Standing Orders Ordinance"). It was also urged that in view of the respondent's confession through his reply dated 14-4-2011, no doubt could be entertained that he was guilty of misconduct he was charged with. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent defended the impugned order and argued that the appellants cannot now object to the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court as no such objection was taken in the written reply to the grievance petition or was otherwise raised before the learned Labour Court and that, in any case, the learned Labour Court had jurisdiction as the respondent is a workman for being employed in an educational institution which is run on profit basis in view of the evidence on record.
6. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced and have also examined the available record. Since there is no dispute that the respondent was employed as a Social Studies Teacher at the Sandal College, Faisalabad, the jurisdictional issue whether the respondent as a teacher could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court cannot be over looked even though no objection to jurisdiction was taken or raised before the learned Labour Court. It is settled law where the services of a workman are terminated, he can have recourse to the Labour Court provided he is a workman as defined in section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance. In this regard, the provisions of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, including its section 2(xxxi) as to the definition of a workman are not relevant. According to section 2(i) of the Ordinance, a person employed to perform any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work is a workman. The question whether a teacher is a workman has to be addressed in light of case-law on the point. In the case of Muhammad Akram Chaudhry v. Administration, Quaid-I-Azam Divisional PublicSchool, Gujranwala (1997 PLC 613), it was held that the job of the school teacher involved intellectual exercise and it .could not be said that a teacher was engaged in any manual and clerical work just because he was writing on the black board or was checking the copies of his pupils. In another case reported as Municipal Committee, Lalamusa v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (1987 PLC (C.S.)
497), it was held that a Primary School Teacher was not a workman in terms of section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Again in Abdul Malik v. National Education Society (1987 PLC 224) and Muhammad Javaid v. The City School and others (2001 PLC 621), it was held that teachers impart knowledge acquired by them through intellectual exercise and cannot be considered as manual or clerical workers to attract the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. Reference may also be made to the City School through Assistant Manager Administration, Karachi and others v. Mrs Talat Yazdani (2011 PLC 468) wherein it was observed as under:--- "8. The respondent was admittedly a Teacher. The word 'Teacher' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) means "one who teaches or instructs; especially one whose business or occupation is to teach others". Again the word 'teach' is defined in the same Dictionary which means:--- "to impart knowledge by means of lessons; to give instruction in; communicating knowledge; introducing into or impressing on the mind as truth or information, and may be done as well through written communication, personal direction, through the Public Press, or through and means by which information may be disseminated. Thus, from the definition of words 'teacher' and 'teach' it is clear that one of the jobs of a teacher is to impress upon the minds of students information through written communication. A teacher has to teach the students not only to read but also how to write.
' Therefore, it was part of her teaching to write on Black-board or in the copies of the students and checking and correcting of the writing of the students. As pointed out above though such work involved manual and clerical labour yet it was only incidental or ancillary to her main job of teaching and would not put her in the category of workman."
7. In view of the legal position discussed above, there can be no debate that the respondent, being a Teacher, was not a workman wherefor the learned Labour Court could not assume any jurisdiction in the matter. The legal position is no different even where a teacher is employed in an educational institution run on commercial basis as his duties cannot be regarded as manual or clerical.
8. The merits of the case also go against the respondent as through his reply dated 14-4-2011, the respondent admitted his guilt when he stated that "this unwanted incident happened just to support a student so he could get admission in this prestigious institution" and undertook to "be careful in future". In view thereof, it is quite clear that the respondent was the main character in the reprehensible act of cheating and use of unfair means in the admission test. Such grave misconduct attracted the penalty of termination of services which has been rightly imposed on the respondent. Surprisingly enough despite finding that the respondent was involved in "immoral and illegal practice", the learned Labour Court has taken the wrong view on the irrelevant consideration that other persons also involved have been let off. I must say that one wrong-doer cannot be allowed to go scot free just because other wrongdoers have not been caught or let off.
9. For what has been stated above the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside with the result that the respondent's grievance petition stands dismissed.