The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan whereby the separate grievance petitions made by the respondents were accepted.
2. The respondents were appointed as School teachers during the period 2012 and 2013 in different schools controlled by D.C.O, Multan who performed their duties diligently and honestly and no adverse order was passed against them. The respondents from the nature of their duties and designation fall within the definition of worker/workman but their services are not being regularized, hence the grievance petitions.
3. The grievance petitions were conteste d by the appellant department and it was alleged that the profession of teacher does not fall within the definition of worker/ workman. The respondents were appointed on short gap arrangement by the School Management Committee on temporary basis for running the schools.
4. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties accepted the grievance petitions, hence the present appeal.
5. Learned law officer has contended that the learned trial Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the respondent's grievance petitions as being teachers, the respondents do not fall within the definition of worker/workman given in Section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 & under Section 3(h) of PIRA, 2010. It is settled law that where the service of a worker/workman are terminated he can have a recourse to labour Court provided he is workman as defined U/S 2(i) of Standing Orders, Ordinance 1968, according to Section 2(i) any person employed in any industrial or commercial establishment to do any skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work is a workman but the respondents are not skilled or unskilled workers. They do not do any manual or clerical worker , therefore they are not workman but the learned trial Court has held it is otherwise erroneously , therefore the appeal is liable to be accepted.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents are low paid employees and they have got no supervisory functions, they do the manual work, therefore the learned trial Court has rightly held them as workman and has rightly accepted the grievance petitions.
7. I have heard. learned counsel for the parties and has perused the available record.
8. Teacher means one who teaches or instructs especially one whose business is to teach others. He imparts knowledge to the people by means of lesson and gives instruction. He communicates knowledge.
9. One of the job of teacher is to impress upon the minds of the students information through written communication. A teacher has to teach the students not only to read but also to write.
10. Teachers impart knowledge acquired by them through intellectual studies. In Islam human being are directed to acquire knowledge and impart knowledge to others. The importing of knowledge cannot be termed as clerical or manual work attracting the provisions of Standing Orders, Ordinance 1968. Furthermore under Section 3(h) of PIRA, 2010, an establishment or institu tion providing education or emergency services are excluded from the application of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. The teacher holds highest position in society being intellectual.
Teaching is a sacred profession and a teacher by no stretch of imagination can be termed as workman, therefore the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court holding teachers as workman is not sustainable in the eyes of law .
11. For what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is hereby set-aside, consequently the respondent's grievance petitions stands dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due completion.