1. ' The appellant feels dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Haripur dated 28-6-1993 whereby the grievance petition moved by her under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was dismissed and consequently the order removing her from service by the respondent was confirmed.
2. ' The relevant background of the case is that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Lady Instructor in the establishment of the respondents on 30-10-1979. It was alleged against her that she identified Mst. Hafiza a non-beneficiary as Rani Gul daughter of a retired personnel (beneficiary) and in this foul play established her identity as beneficiary and thus managed her admission in the institution entitling her to stipend and other benefits. The matter was probed in by the respondents and she was transferred to Palandari, Azad Kashmir vide order dated 4-5-1988.
3. The petitioner-appellant did not obey the order of her transfer and challenged it in the Labour Court. However, during the pendency of the petition the petitioner-appellant was proceeded against for her fraudulent misrepresentation and non-compliance of the order and was ultimately dismissed from service by order dated 2-5-1989. This order of dismissal was challenged in Labour Court but with no success.
4. ' In the first round of litigation the Labour Court had held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter but on appeal to this Tribunal the case was remanded to the Labour Court to hear the matter afresh so as to ascertain the status of the Fauji Foundation in order to determine as to whether the employees of the Foundation of the status of the petitioner-appellant can be classified as workmen and as to whether the grievance of such workmen can be redressed by the Labour Court under the Labour Laws. It was held in the impugned order that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, firstly, on the ground that Fauji Foundation is an institution connected with an incidental to the armed forces of Pakistan and secondly, the vocational training centre where the petitioner- appellant was employed cannot be treated as an industry so as to attract the application of the Labour laws. On merits the Labour Court also found no justification for interference in the dismissal order.
5. ' The learned counsel for the appellant while arguing referred to Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 so as to stress that the appellant could not be transferred to Palandari a place in Azad Jammu and Kashmir which does not form part of Pakistan. The Article which is referred has no nexus with the point which was raised as the conditions of the service under which the appellant was employed clearly envisages that she can be transferred to any place under the control of the respondents. The respondents have their institution in Azad Kashmir and, therefore, the appellant could be transferred there and as such she was obliged to obey the order. It was next contended that the Labour Court had jurisdiction in the matter and the labour laws could govern the controversy raised by the appellant and the contrary decision of the Labour Court was violative of the Standing Orders Ordinance and Industrial Relations Ordinance. I would agree with the learned counsel to the extent that the bar of exclusion as contained in section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance would not apply to Fauji Foundation as it is not an institution in that sense which is connected with or which performs some duties incidental to the armed forces.
6. The operation of the labour laws can only be excluded if it is shown that an organisation performs functions which has nexus with armed forces or its responsibilities or obligations are relatable to the armed forces. The Fauji Foundation has nothing to do with defence preparedness, activities, or other functions performed by the armed forces personnel connected with or arising out of their being a member of the armed forces. However, the vocational training centre of the type where the petitioner-appellant was employed cannot be termed as an industry so as to be covered by the labour laws. This proposition has elaborately been discussed in a judgment of the Lahore High Court reported as PLD 1976 Lah. 1097 wherein it was held "Educational and training establishment maintaining an industrial unit (workshop), rendering services on payment, advertising its product and being an incidence of vocational education and of training programme designed to ensure job opportunities to trainees -Held, what is incidental to main purpose of such establishment cannot detract , from its being an educational institution -- Orders of Labour Court treating workshop of such establishment not to be a part of educational process or education to be an "industry" for purposes of Industrial Relations Ordinance declared to be without lawful authority."
7. The decision of the Labour Court on this count was, therefore, correct as the vocational institution where the petitioner-appellant was employed could not be equated with industry even if it is proved that it sells some of its products prepared in the workshop of the institution. On merits too the petitioner-appellant was not able to prove anything illegal or irregular with the proceedings initiated against her culminating in her dismissal firm service. Col. Retd. Abdul Shakoor, Field Officer Incharge of the respondents has given an exhaustive statement and has brought on record all the relevant documents which clearly shows that the petitioner-appellant was afforded every chance to defend herself but she purposely failed to avail those chances. For example Exh. R.W.1/11 is a letter directing the appellant to explain her position regarding personation of Hafiza Begum for Rani Gul.
8. Another letter to this effect is Exh. RW-1/12. The reply of the appellant to these letters can be found in Exh. RW-1/13 to Exh. RW-1/15. Exh. RW-1/19 and Exh. RW-1/20 are documents showing the failure of the appellant to attend to her duties. The reply to these notices by the appellant can be found in Exh RW-1/21 to Exh. RW-1/23. Exh. RW-1/24 is yet another notice directing the appellant to explain as to why she absented herself. Exh. RW-1/25 is the report of a Lady Superintendent wherein she has clearly written that the appellant refused to receive the letter of her transfer. Similarly, there are many other reports on the file indicating that the appellant purposely refused to receive the notice of her transfer. Again by Exh. RW-1/27 the appellant was directed to appear and explain as to why she failed to joiner duties at Palandari. In view of this overwhelming documentary evidence the appellant would hardly be justified to say that she had either been proceeded against ex parte or that she was not afforded any opportunity to defend herself.
9. ' For the above reasons find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.