' The services of the 2 appellants/applicants, Ghulam Sarwar and Abdullah, who were employed as cooks in the Government Teachers' Training College, Khairpur, were terminated by separate but identical office orders, dated 28th May, 1980, for allegedly committing acts of misconduct, including misbehaviour and irresponsible behaviour. They challenged the said orders through separate grievance petitions filed before the learned VIIth Labour Court at Sukkur. Both the grievance petitions were fixed for hearing before the learned Labour Court on 31st January, 1981, but as both the appellants/applicants were found to be absent when the grievance petitions were called up for hearing in Court, the same were dismissed for default and non-prosecution. The appellants/ applicants filed restoration applications supported by their affidavits in which the common plea taken was that they were unable to reach the Court in time due to the failure of the engine of the bus in which they were travelling. The learned Labour Court, by its orders, dated 20th April, 1981, dismissed the restoration applications filed by both the appellants/applicants on the ground that though they are said to have been filed on 27th February, 1981, they were put up before the Presiding Officer on 4th March, 1981 beyond the period of 1 month, which, according to it, was the limitation period prescribed for the filing of such applications. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants/applicants have preferred appeals as well as applications for the exercise of suo mote powers of revision by this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Hassan Hameedi, Advocate, who appeared for the 2 appellants/applicants. The respondents have remained absent and unrepresented. An application for adjournment has been submitted by Hafizullah Sheikh, Teacher, in the Government Teachers' Training College, Khairpur.
But apart from the fact that the said Teacher is not authorised to represent the respondents, there is no merit in the application. The ground on which the adjournment is sought is that the permission from the Director Education, Hyderabad, has not been received so far for defence of these 2 matters. It may be recalled that these appeals/ applications were previously fixed for hearing at Sukkur on 6th January, 1982, but on the request of the respondent on the plea that he had not been able to obtain permission for the defence of the appeals/applications; the 2 matters were adjourned for today. The respondent thus had enough time to arrange for the defence of the appeals/applications. The failure to do so only denotes inefficiency and negligence on his part. The grant of further time to the respondent thus is not only unwarranted but is likely to be misunderstood as weakness on the part of the Courts or to generate the feeling that the Government institutions are to be treated differently and given special privilege. Any such impression must be eradicated from the minds of both the Government employees as well as the general public in the interest of equality before the law. I have, therefore, rejected the applications for adjournment, made on behalf of the respondents.
3. Mr. Hassan Hameedi candidly conceded that in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd. v, Muhammad Sardar Khan and another (1), he could not press the 2 appeals as they were not against the decisions of the learned Labour Court dismissing the grievance petitions of the appellants/applicants, but against the orders of the learned Labour Court dismissing the restoration application filed by the applicants/appellants. He, however, submitted that as in the case of Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd, this Tribunal should exercise its suo motu powers of revision, as the appellants/applicants could not be blamed if the office of the learned Labour Court kept the restoration application from 27th February, 1981 to 3rd March, 1981, without putting up the same before the Presiding Officer. I would have been inclined to go into the contention of the learned Advocate if I was satisfied that the grievance petitions of the 2 appellants/applicants were maintainable. As already indicated, the 2 appellants/applicants were employed as cooks in the Government Teachers Training College. Since the grievance applications of the appellants/applicants were against the termination of their services, they could only be maintained if they were employed in an industrial or commercial establishment as defined in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance: 1968, and further they fall within the definition of workmen as given in the said Ordinance. As the Government Teachers Training College, Khairpur, is an educational institution and is meant purely for the training of Government teachers, it cannot be deemed to be an industrial or commercial establishment for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case reported as Employees' Union, Jamia Karachi v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind (2) that the Karachi University and the Karachi Board of Secondary Education being educational institutions cannot be deemed to fall within the definition of industry as given in the I. R.
0. And that the service rendered by the University and Board of Education entirely depends upon contribution of learning, research, study and knowledge of men of letters, and that the benefit which a student gets or community at large receives from the University is completely different and distinguishable from benefit of service which provides the community with use of something such as hotel, electric power, transportation, mail delivery etc. This Tribunal has also repeatedly taken the view that educational training institutions do not fall within the definition of industrial or commercial establishments. In view of this position, it will serve no useful purpose, if the impugned orders of the learned Labour Court were revised. In the circumstances, I do not consider that it would be appropriate in these 2 cases to set aside the impugned orders of the learned Labour Court as in my vinyl the grievance petitions/applications of the 2 appellants/applicants are otherwise also not maintainable. {{FOOT NOTE}}