' The appeal arises from the decision dated 2-1-1979 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant brought for the recovery of deducted wages for the period from May, 1976 to November, 1977 amounting to Rs,15,895.85 was dismissed.
2. The appellant was employed as Accountant in the Lahore Branch of the respondent. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the National Book Foundation is not an industry. The learned trial Judge has not discussed the evidence brought by the parties and relying upon its own judgment delivered in petition No,42/77 titled as 'Registrar Trade Unions v. National Book Foundation Staff Union decided on 23.8_1977 held that the respondent establishment was not an industry. The copy of the judgment of the case referred to by the learned trial Judge is Exh.D.5.
The learned trial Judge also relied upon PLD 1976 Lah. 1097 titled as K.G. Old, Principal, Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court and six others.
3. Every case is to be decided according to its own merits and material brought on the record. If a party fails to bring sufficient material on the record, it does not mean that the other parties who have raised the same question but who have brought sufficient material on the record should suffer and that the material brought by them on the record cannot be considered. In the present case, the copy of the very scheme of the respondent was brought on the record by the appellant, but since the learned trial Judge has not discussed it,the order is not maintainable. Besides the bringing on the record the scheme the appellant appeared as his own witness as P.W.1 and made an elaborate statement. On behalf of the respondent Muhammad Asghar, Officer Incharge Administration, was examined as D.W.1 but the learned trial Judge has not discussed that evidence also. I have gone through the copy of the judgment of the learned trial Judge upon which the reliance was placed for holding in the present case that the respondent is not an industry. In that case also no evidence produced by the respondent is discussed. This is not known whether no evidence was produced by the parties in the said case, or evidence was produced but it was not discussed. Whatever the case may be, so far as the present case is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on the record, without discussion and appreciation of which the learned trial Judge could not come to a definite and correct conclusion on the point involved in the case. The discussion of evidence on the record may prejudice either of the parties, therefore, I refrain to survey the evidence on the record. However, the points that the respondent supplies books at moderate prices and not at cost prices and further that the Government has advanced money not as a grant but as a loan and that too not free of interest but at 8 percent interest, need consideration to find out whether the respondent comes within the definition of industry or industrial establishment or not. The scheme would show whether the respondent is going profit or is working on no-profit basis. In the beginning every enterprise either runs at a loss or on no-profit basis, therefore, working of it during the whole period which has passed is to be considered to find out whether the object is to work it on no-profit basis or on.-profit basis.
4. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case with the direction that the material present on the record be considered and after appreciating and discussing the evidence on the record, the case be decided.