1. ' IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, Mubeen Ahmed Siddiqui, an employee of Messrs Dr. Bourjaur Ankelsaria Nursing Home Limited, the respondent No, 2 herein, against the order passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi on 13-1-1983 whereby the decision of the First Labour Court, Karachi passed on 31-10-1982 has been set aside.
2. ' The ficts leading to the filing of the present petition briefly stated are as follows:-- ' On 28-9-1977 the petitioner Mubeen Ahmed Siddiqui, was appointed a Telephone Operator by respondent No, 2, a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and duly registered with the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Karachi. The respondent No, 2 terminated the services of the petitioner on 13-3-1980. The petitioner filed his grievance application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Standing Order No, 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 before the IVth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and succeeded in getting a decision in his favour on 9-3-1981. The respondent No, 2 filed an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi but they did not succeed. The petitioner as a result of above two decisions was ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits. The respondent No,2 ordered his reinstatement in service on 29-4-1981 but no specific duty was assigned to him and he was made t sit at the Reception Counter.
3. ' The petitioner was later on charge-sheeted for remaining absent for more than ten days and an encluiry was conducted against him. The service of the petitioner were terminated by order passed on 22-6-1981 by the respondent No,2 The petitioner then submitted grievance notice which was rejected by respondent No,2. Consequently he filed his grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Labour Court seeking hi reinstatement in service with full back benefits. The Presiding Officer of the Is Sindh Labour Court, Karachi by his order passed on 31-10-1982 ordered hi reinstatement in service with full back benefits.
4. ' The respondent No,2 preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi impugning the order mentioned above. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi allowed the appeal on 13-1-1983. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
5. ' During the course of litigation between the parties Ordinance No,XXI of 1979 was promulgated on 5-4-1979 whereby original subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was substituted excluding the application of the said Ordinance to certain classes of employees and services. The substituted subsection was again amended by Ordinance II of 1979 which excluded from its application the establishments maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons and registration of trade unions in such establishments were cancelled by operation of law.
6. ' The respondents No,2 who were the appellants before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi mainly contended that amendment effected in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 referred to hereinabove specifically excluded its application to institutions like them. The learned Judge presiding over the Sindh Appellate Labour Tribunal considered the law placed before him and held that the provisions of Ordinance were not applicable and, therefore, the grievance application filed by the petitioner was incompetent. He examined the facts of the case on merits as well and held that the order terminating the services of the petitioner was passed on the basis of sound evidence.
7. ' Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Advocate appearing for the petitioner before us mainly contended that the respondent No,2 was a commercial organisation and a commercial hospital and the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were applicable to them. He further contended that in spite of amendment made in section 1(3) of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 provision contained in Standing Order No,12(5) of the Sindh Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 shall apply to the case of the petitioner.
8. ' Mr.Talmeez Burney Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent No,2 supported the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were not applicable. In support of his such contention he placed reliance on cases reported as 1984 PLC 1679: 1986 PLC 521: 1983 PLC 918 and 1981 PLC 229.
9. ' Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Advocate appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that respondent No,2 are a commercial hospital where the patients are kept by different doctors and such establishments have not been excluded from the application of provisions of section 1(3) (f) of the Ordinance. The Advocate has indeed missed to notice that the legislature have intentionally not used the term "Hospital" in the phraseology of that clause as the term 'Hospital' has a very wide meaning. Term "Hospital" according to its meaning given in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary not only means an institution for the treatment of sick or injured but also includes hostel for travellers, a charitable institution for the old or destitute, or for reception and education of the needy young, a building for any of these purposes, "Hospital", therefore, according to its meaning does not only mean the hospital, a building for the treatment of sick or infirm persons as is commonly understood but includes certain other institutions enumerated hereinabove. It was on this count that the Legislature intentionally omitted to use "Hospital" in phraseology of sub-clause (f).
10. According to clause (f) of that subsection an establishment for the treatment or care of sick and infirm is excluded from the operation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has not been disputed at any stage of the case that respondent No,2 are not an establishment meant for the care of sick or infirm persons. The first contention advanced by Mr.Suleman Habibullah therefore has no force.
11. ' Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Advocate for the petitioner had next contended that the grievance application filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court was maintainable under clause (3) of the Standing Order 12 of the Sindh Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 despite exclusion of application of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
12. Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provides a process for redress of an individual grievance of a worker only in respect of enforcement of a right guaranteed or secured to him under any law, award or settlement. By clause (3) of Standing Order No,12 grievance in respect of unfair termination of his service or his removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal can be brought before a Labour Court as an individual grievance under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The provision contained in clause (3) of Standing Order No,12 will have the effect of amending provision contained in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the extent of adding such category of action to be treated as individual grievance that can be redressed under that law. Such a legislative system is valid and known as legislature by reference.
13. Any action that can be taken on or resorted to, will always be within the framework of the enactment to which such reference has been made. Clause (f) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has specifically excluded establishments like that of Respondent No,2 from the application of the Ordinance. It, therefore, follows that employees of establishments other than those who are employed by establishments specifically excluded by that provision can only resort to action under clause (3) of the Standing Order No,12. Mr. Habibullah, Advocate for the petitioner had placed reliance on cases referred to by him before the Appellate Tribunal. These cases related to a period before clause (1) was added to section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and are therefore of no avail to him.
14. As the result of above we are inclined to hold that the establishment of Respondent No,2 which is an institution established for the care of sick and infirm is excluded from the operation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and grievance application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.
15. By taking such a view we are supported by the conclusions reached in the cases referred to by the Advocate for the respondent No,2 and mentioned hereinabove. We therefore find no force in this petition which is dismissed with costs.