Mr. Athar Jameel appellant was employed as Assistant Storekeeper by the West Pakistan Society for Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons, 111-Ferozepur Road, Lahore. He was charge-sheeted in August 1974, for misconduct. Thereafter an enquiry followed and ultimately the Society by its order dated 29October 1974, terminated the services of the appellant with effect from 2nd November 1974, forenoon. He was paid all his dues and also one month's pay in lieu of Notice Pay. The order of termination was formally served on him under the signatures of the Administrative Officer of the Society. The appellant filed an appeal before the Executive Committee. The Committee rejected his appeal on 19th November 1974. On 12th December 1974, the appellant filed application before the Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lahore against the Administrative Officer of the aforesaid Society under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking his re-instatement with back benefits. He contended that no proper enquiry was held and he was not afforded with an opportunity to-- produce witnesses to explain his position.
2. The respondent-Society resisted the case and pleaded inter alia that the respondent-Society was a charitable non-profit organization established for the rehabilitation of the Disabled Persons.
It was neither industrial nor commercial establishment and as such it was not covered by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The application was also resisted on merits.
3. Mr. Athar Jameel appellant appeared as his own witness before the --learned lower Court.
4. On behalf of the respondent Abdul Majid, Assistant Physiotherapist and Masood Beg testified. The relevant documentary evidence i.e. charge---sheet Exh. P-1/2 show-cause notice, Exh. R-10.
Findings of the Enquiry Officer Exh. R.W. 2/4, Orders of Disciplinary Committee Exh. RW 2/7. Order ofth termination of service Exh. R.W. 2/a and Order of Executive Committee regarding rejection of appeal R. W. 2/5 have also been produced. The learned lower Court after considering the parties' evidence instead of recording its findings on merits concluded that the respondent-Society was not an industry inasmuch as it was not being run for commercial consideration or for earning profits. This organisation works on voluntary basis and depends on finances provided by Government, non---Government agencies and donations from public. According to the balance- sheet 64 percent of the receipts were from donations and Grant-in-aid. Income on account of appliances etc. supplied by the Society was smallest percentage of the receipts of the Society.
Whatever was produced by Society it was meant to feed the prescriptions of the patients and the nominal charges Acre paid by them in the nature of donations. The Government have exempted the Society from payment of the octroi charge, from income-tax from property tax and token tax.
This society was permitted to import into Pakistan all materials and equipment whether as gift or otherwise free of sales tax and custom duty.
5. Consequently the application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned lower Court vide order dated 28th November 1975, which has been impugned through the present appeal.
6. From the evidence on the record it is abundantly clear that the respondent-Society is a charitable institution which is not earning profit and it is meant for the rehabilitation of the disable persons: Whatever is produced in its Laboratory and occupational Thereaputic Centre is meant to meet the needs of the patients. This Society does not work for commercial consideration. In the circumstances the learned lower Court has justifiably held that this was rot an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and therefore the appellant had no locus standi to make an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
7. Moreover, even if by some stretch of imagination it be held that the respondent-Society is an industry and the appellant a workman, it may be observed that from the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record it is sufficiently established that the services of the appellant were terminated after observing all the formalities prescribed by Standing Orders 15 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He was duly charge-sheeted and independent inquiry was held.
He was served with a show-cause notice His reply to the show-cause notice was considered and the competent committees ordered his termination from service.
8. In the light of what has been said above we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed while the impugned order is upheld.