DECISION This is an appeal against an award dated October 25, 1972, whereby the learned Chairman of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi ordered the re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits. The facts giving rise to present appeal briefly put are these.
2. The respondent, Madar Baksh, was employed as a Chowkidar on a salary of Rs. 80, per month, as would appear from Exh. R-4 on Hth August 1971, the respondent asked for leave as he was ill. The appellant not only refused to grant him leave, but when he came on the next day, he was turned out. The learned Court came to the conclusion that the refusal to employ the respondent was not warranted by law, as the respondent was neither given a charge-sheet nor a month's pay.
3. Mr. Nizam Ali Khan, the learned Representative for the appellant, contended that tae appellant cannot be said to be an industry so as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). The appellant Aisha Bawany Academy (Girls School) is an institution which imparts education to the girls. In this connection, the learned Representative relied on a Supreme Court judgment of India--The University of Delhi and another v. Ram Nath and others (1), Assam Bashtra Basha Prachar Samiti v. Their Workmen and other (2) and Muhammad Afzal v.
The Principal, Pakistan Administrative Staff College, Lahore (3), in support of his contention that the work of teaching is not covered by the definition of "industry" as given in section 2(*/v) of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court of India in an elaborate judgment, after examining the definition of "industry", "workman" and "employer" came to the conclusion that the work of imparting education is not an industry within the meaning of the definition given under section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act of 1947). The definition of "industry", "workman" and "employer" in the Ordinance is substantially the same as in the Act of 1947. No useful purpose can be served by repeating the observations of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. I have come to the conclusion that Educational Institutions asL such are not industry. | 4. Mr. Wasi Ahmad, the learned Representative for the respondent, contended, that the word "calling" in the definition of "industry" is wide enough to include Educational Institutions. It may be so. What has to be seen is as to whether the accumulative effect of the definition of "workman", "employer" and "industry", would lead one to the conclusion that an Educational Institution is an industry. In this connection, Mr. Wasi Ahmad has relied on a dicision of Bombay High Court, reported in AIR 1949 Bom. 141, but I prefer the reasoning of the Supreme Court of India in the case of the University of Delhi and another, already mentioned above. (2) (1) AIR 1963 SC 18731966 PLC 28 , (3) 1971 PLC 343 5, I would hold that Aisha Bawany Academy (Girls School), whioh is imparting education to the girls, is not an industry so as to give any B redress to the respondent, who was employed as a Chowkidar. As the point urged before me on which the appeal succeeds, was not taken before the leamed Labour Court, I would order the appellant to pay Rs. I0O as costs to the respondent within a week.
6. In the result, the award of the learned Labour Court dated October 25, 1972 is set aside.