Mr. Abdul Jabbar was employed in the Laboratory of Shaukat Umar Memorial Hospital of Fauji Foundation as a Dispenser. He was subsequently dismissed on 16-6-1987 on the allegation that he had made wrong entries, in the daily medicine expenses which was a forgery.
2. Applicant made representation also to the Director General Fauji Foundation and was surprised that he received another letter that he was absent from duty since 6-5-1987 without permission.
However, he has challenged the dismissal order, that the charge-sheet of 10-6-1987 was time- barred and without statement of allegations.
3. Respondent has filed the objections, that u/s 3 of the I.R.O., the grievance petition is not maintainable, as the hospital is charitable, which is a concern of Fauji Foundation and is a Trust under the Charitable Endowments Act of 1890 for the benefit of ex-servicemen and their families.
4. While admitting, this application, the question arose whether MrAbdul Jabbar can come to the Labour Court for the redress of grievance u/s 25-A I.R.O.
REASONS:
(1) The Court has the benefit of seeing the evidence on this issue of law. But before Court refers the evidence, subsection (3) of I.R.O. provides that it shall not apply to any person employed, by reference to clause (f) that, by an establishment maintained for the treatment of care of sick, infirm, destitute as mentally unfit persons.
(2) In the context of this restriction which is further read with section 1 and subsection (2), which deals with the extent, application and commencement of the Ordinance, this clause (f) comes in where, there is establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick persons, or infirm or destitute as mentally unfit person. This clause seems to restrict the application of the provisions of I.R.O. in cases where the person employed by an establishment comes for redress, in the context of the classification mentioned therein.
(3) What the Labour Court, understands, in its plain and natural meaning that the words used are, sick, infirm and destitute. If the comma is used it is, after, the word sick and then after the word, infirm, and then it speaks of the destitute as mentally unfit persons. What it follows that the word mentally unfit has been used with the word destitute only, and, not with the words sick and infirm, that this classification can only apply to mentally unfit persons, what the Labour Court follows, from the wordings that mental unfitness is distinguished from physical illness.
(4) In the context therefore of the natural meaning of the words, Court refers, the following extract: of evidence: "Fauji Foundation is Charitable Trust. The Shaukat Memorial Hospital is under the management of the Foundation which is Charitable Trust of the Fauji Foundation. Both the civilians and the ex-Army Officers are given free treatment. They also charge nominally from the civilians. If there is a deficit of the income the Foundation pays the deficit. Abdul Jabbar was appointed in the Hospital as Dispenser."
5. What the witness has said in the cross-examination that he is not aware of the loss and profit of other units. He also states that they also charge for the Laboratory tests but only from ex-Army persons. He supports the appointment letter regarding terms and conditions but at the same time states that the services of the applicant are not transferable.
6. From the evidence, precisely it has been proved that this hospital treats the sick people whether they be ex-Army Officers or civil people. This hospital is under the control of a Trust which is of charitable nature.
7. There is also booklet produced with the title "Scheme of Administration for the Fauji Foundation".
8. One of the objects of the Scheme given in Article 2, in clause (c) reads that the object of the Scheme is to apply the income of the Foundation for the benefit of beneficiaries and their dependents. This entire Scheme of Administration appears to be for the welfare of the ex-Army Officers, for whom the Trust was created.
9. Clause (f) neither speaks of the Trust nor of Hospital but a simple establishment, which is maintained to treat the sick people, infirm people and mentally restarted persons. Clause (f) therefore neither speaks of whether the establishment will be profitable or otherwise. The word simply used is establishment. The word establishment is further, defined as office, firm, Industrial Unit, undertaking shop or premises in which workman are employed for the working or carrying on Industry. The word Industry means business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation. The word. Industry therefore is of comprehensive classification of the general nature. If the hospital is doing the business, even by charging nominal fee for the application of proceeds to the objects of Trust whether the hospital or its establishment covers this aspect by coming in clause (f) if the establishment is there to run the business of Hospital which deals with the sick people, in view of the natural meaning what the Labour Court understands and follows that Hospital or its establishment which is said to be Industrial Unit as a whole, there is complete bar for those people who come for seeking redress like any other worker under section 25-A, I.R.O. The words in its plain and natural meaning, bring the hospital, within this purview.
10. Mr. Ch Ashraf has argued, that if the appointment order has been issued, by the Administrator, of the Memorial Hospital, that his services can be transferred, to the Head Office, Rawalpindi or to any project of the Fauji Foundation, once these conditions have been made as a basis, of his employment, these cannot he changed. Mr. Ashraf can be right from this point of view, that the words any other project of Fauji Foundation" may not necessarily be hospital, and therefore, subsection (3) of section 1 of I.R.O. does not come in the way of the applicant, that he cannot have redress before the Labour Court.
11. What the Labour Court has seen, clause (f) of section 1 of I.R.O., the only emphasis has been made, that the person employed by an establishment, which is maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute as mentally unfit person, can seek redress under section 25-A of I.R.O. before the Labour Court, if there is express bar. If the printed conditions are there, by which condition is inserted by the hospital itself, that he can be transferred to any other project, every appointment order, is to be issued in accordance with the law which governs. The hospitals are outside the scope of I.R.O. If he is a dispenser, naturally his transfer can only be in the hospital looking to the nature of employment, whatever be other project understood in the sense.
12. In the result, the hospitals are outside the purview of I.R.O., and the applicant has no jurisdiction to come before the labour Court, for redress of his grievance. But the Court is also of the view, that the remedy cannot be lost if there is a loss of service, done wrongfully for any other forum, under the Civil Court. Application is dismissed on the point of law. Both Advocates are present to argue this aspect and informed of the announcement of decision to day.