' This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 12-2-1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstatement in service has been returned for want of jurisdiction holding that the respondent council is not an `industry' or 'commercial establishment'.
2. The term 'commercial establishment' is not defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
The respondent council, however, prima facie appears to be covered by the definition of 'commercial establishment' given in section 2(b) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under:- ' Commercial establishment' means an establishment in which the business of advertising, commission or forwarding is conducted, or which is a commercial agency, and includes a clerical department of a factory or of any industrial or commercial undertaking, the office establishment of a person who for the purpose of fulfilling a contract with the owner of any commercial establishment or industrial establishment, employs workmen, a unit of a joint stock company, an insurance company, a banking company or a bank, a broker's office or stock-exchange, a club, a hotel, a restaurant or an eating house, a cinema or theatre, and such other establishment or class thereof, as Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a commercial establishment for the purposes of this Ordinance."
' The respondent council is a kind of theatre as dramas are played therein. This fact stands proved by unrebutted statement of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents had made reference to Ex. R-4 and has argued that the Government has treated the respondent Council as an educational institution and sent letter Ex. R-5 to the Income-tax Department informing it that the respondent council was not a commercial body as it was created to implement the Government's cultural policies which are purely academic and are artistic in nature. It is further said, "These are in fields of fine arts and crafts, theatre, music including teaching classes for children and adults." The Income-tax Officer was also told that the notice of submission of accounts in respect of income and expenditure was not called for. The question whether a body is or is not an industrial or commercial establishment is always to be decided on the evidence and not for the reason that the Government is treating it or has declared it not an industrial or commercial establishment. Rather according to the definition given in section 2(b) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the Government can by means of a notification in the official Gazette declare a body as commercial establishment for the purpose of the Ordinance. So there is no provision that the Government has power to declare a body as a non-commercial establishment.
So on the basis of Exs. R-4 and R-5 alone it cannot be decided that respondent No, 1 is in reality an educational institution. It is mentioned in Ex. R-5 that the Government's cultural policies are in the fields of fine arts and crafts, theatre, music including teaching classes for children and adults but there is no evidence that actually there are any such classes and if so, what kind of education in the fine arts is imparted, There is no evidence what kind of dramas are played. If the dramas are purely educational and cultural, it may be said that the respondent council is not covered by the definition of 'commercial establishment'. When a theatre is included in the definition and since in Ex. R-5 the Government has said that the respondent council is a theatre, then only in the presence of some evidence that the programmer which is played in the respondent council is purely educational or cultural, it can be said that although it is a theatre yet it is not covered by the definition. The appellant did not produce that evidence which was required to prove the point. He has said that dramas are played but he did not disclose the nature of the dramas. So far as this question is concerned whether the respondent council is being run on commercial basis, the appellant stated only this much that the tickets are to be purchased by the spectators in the sum of Rs, 50 to Rs, 1,000, but he has said nothing about the expenditure. The evidence produced by the respondents too is silent on the point. If evidence of income as well as expenditure comes on the record only then it can be said whether the establishment is being run on profit basis. Needless to say that an industrial or commercial establishment is that which has been started for producing wealth and profits. The mere fact that the Government is giving grants is not sufficient to say that it is not a commercial establishment if by evidence it is proved to be so. So far as the definition of 'industry' given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, a business, and a trade is included. Again a business and trade is that which is being run on profit basis for producing wealth.
Since the evidence of expenditure is not on the record, it could not be decided on the present evidence whether the respondent council is or is not covered by the definition of `industry'. In order to arrive at a correct conclusion, it appears necessary that both the parties be given opportunity to produce relevant evidence on the point in issue.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that parties be afforded opportunity to produce relevant evidence oral and documentary of their own choice and the point be decided again. If the learned lower Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent council is covered by the definition of 'commercial establishment', or industry it shall decide the case on merits. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.