DECISION ' The appellant, who was working since 1978 in the Blind Middle School, Nawabshah being run by the Pakistan Association of the Blind, the respondents herein, was appointed as Principal in the said school with effect from 9th August, 1979 in N. P. S. Grade 17 of the Government vide order of the Association, dated 4th May, 1980. According to the Memo. Of Appeal, the appellant's services were terminated with effect from 4th May, 1980. However, Mr. Shakir Naqshbandi, the learned counsel for the appellant, states that this is an error and that actually the services of the appellant were terminated on 13th April, 1981. The appellant challenged the order of the termination of his services before the learned VII Labour Court at Sukkur which has dismissed his grievance Petition on the ground that as the Principal of the Institution, his duties ostensibly includes the exercise of supervisory powers and hence he could not be deemed to be a workman for the purposes of the labour laws. Aggrieved by this decision the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal,
2. Mr. Shakir Naqshbandi sought to argue that the appellant was a workman for the purposes of the labour laws in spite of the fact that he was appointed as Principal for the Blind Middle School, Nawabshah. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon firstly, the letter of appointment of the appellant as Principal and secondly, the statement of the appellant before the learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. It may be pointed out that no evidence was led before the learned Labour Court which has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the preliminary ground that it was not maintainable since, the appellant could not be considered to be a workman for the purposes of the labour laws. The letter of appointment of the appellant does not in any way support the contention of Mr. Shakir Naqshbandi, in that it does not indicate, beyond the fact that the appellant was appointed as Principal of the Institution in N. P. S. Grade 17, the nature of his duties. As regards the statement made by the appellant himself More the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Khairpur, apart from the fact that this evidence was not lead before the learned Labour Court, a perusal of the said statement does not bring the appellant within the definition of workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Since the services of the appellant had been terminated and such termination of services had not led to or was in consequence of an industrial dispute therefore the appellant could file and maintain a grievance petition against such termination only if he fell within the definition of "workman" as given in the Sind Industrial, and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmad (1), The substantive part of the statement made by the appellant before the Lommissioner, Workmen's Compensation reads as follows :- "That I was appointed as Principal by President of Association of Blind, District Nawabshah Branch with effect from 9th September, {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 PLC 822 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' 1979. My scale was Rs. 900 p. m. I hereby produce copy of appointment letter No. PAB/NW5/4 of 1980 dated 4th May, 1980 (Exh. I). My duties was to teach apprentices/students of the School. The subjects included English and Science. The school has four projects namely (a) Manufacture of Plastic bags, (b) Netting of chairs, (c) Assembling of cycle; and (d) "Khadi" Hand-Looms. The total No. Of workers was between 20 and 25. These articles were meant for sale and income of the institution was through netting of chairs. In the beginning I was told that due to paucity of funds, I should wait for my salary for 3 months. After that I was kept on promises only and no payment of salary was made to me. When I repeatedly demanded my salary from opponent, I was kept on false promises. I say that opponent has necessary funds but I have not been paid my salaries. Later on when I again demanded my salaries I was given letter No,. Nil dated 13th April, 1981 (Exh. H). My performance throughout the period was satisfactory and no inquiry was conducted against me. I pray that opponent be directed to payment my withheld (Not paid to me) wages from 9th September, 1979 to 13th April, 1981 along with compensation (if any) admissible under the Law."
' A perusal of the above statement does not support the contention that the appellant was employed to do manual or clerical work or even his major duties were the performance of manual or clerical work. Even if it were a part of the duties of the appellant to do some manual work that would be work incidental to his main duties of Principal of the Institution. I am, therefore, of the view, looking to the facts that the appellant was appointed as the Head of the School his embolus nests in N. P. S. Grade 17 and the nature of his duties as stated by that the appellant is not a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, and accordingly would not be entitled to file a grievance petition under subsection (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25-A, I.R.O.
4. The grievance petition of the appellant is further liable to dismissal on the ground that the Association of the blind which is running the Blind School, Nawabshah, is not an industrial or commercial establishment for the purposes of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and hence its employees would not be deemed to be workmen for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Even if it be assumed that the articles made in the school were sold in the market that would not make the School or the Association a Commercial establishment for the principal object of the School appears to be to teach the students and not run a business or to market the articles manufactured in the School while teaching the students. A learned single Judge of the Karachi High Court in the case of Medical Educational Uplift Fund Association of the Seventh Day Adventist in Pakistan v. Vth Labour Court (I) has held that a charitable hospital run on no profit basis does not fall within the scope of either commercial establishment or industrial establishment and the employees of such hospital are not workmen for the purposes of the Standing Orders. In the instant case also it is not shown that the Pakistan Association of the Blind which runs the School at Nawabullah, of which the appellant was appointed as the Principal falls within the definition of commercial or industrial establishment for the purposes of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. 1 may {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) 1978 PLC 536 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' also refer to a Division Bench decision of the Karachi High Court reported in 1981 PLC 403 where it was held that the Karachi University and the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education is not an industry.
4. The appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation but it has been contended that this was on account of the fault of the Advocate to whom the papers were entrusted for drafting the appeal. I need not to go into this question in view of the fact that I have held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the two grounds stated above.
5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.