DECISION ' Aggrieved by the decision, dated 28th September, 2000 of Sindh Labour Court No,I, Karachi, the City School has preferred this appeal though through Assistant Manager Administration, yet the Headmistress of the School has also joined hands in the appeal as appellant No,2. The factual background of this case briefly stated is that the respondent lady Teacher. Mrs. Talat Yazdani was employed as a Teacher in the appellants School. According to the said respondent, her service record was good so much so that she had received letters of appreciation from the School Management, one after the other. Despite that the Headmistress of Junior Branch-I, Karachi who had personal grudge against her managed with mala fide intention to get her removed from the job. Her case is that the City School is a Private Limited Company, running a chain of schools and having Units of Joint Stock Company and is listed as one of the Establishments within the definition of Commercial Establishment. On the other hand the appellant School in their reply statement took a stand that the respondent being a Teacher cannot be a workman and as such does not fall within the definition of the said terms as given in the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and therefore, the said Ordinances were not applicable to her.
It was further stated by the appellant School that the School being Educations Institution was not an Establishment as defined in aforesaid two Ordinances. As regards respondent's behaviour it was stated that she was in the habit of using abusive language with staff members, students and even her superiors and her attitude and behaviour was always a problem to the Institution. Moreover, her services were terminated as per terms and conditions of her appointment.
2. The respondent lady Teacher filed her affidavit-in-evidence in support of her case and the appellant-School examined Jalil Ahmed, Assistant Manager Administration, Mrs. Fauzia Headmistress and Mrs. Shahnaz Ali Mirza, Senior Headmistress of City School. I have persued the relevant documents available in the Case File and have also heard the arguments of the learned counsel of both the parties at good length.
3. Parties' learned counsel agreed that the fate of this case was entirely dependent upon the resolution of the controversy as to the status of the respondent lady Teacher as being workman or not. Her own claim is that since her job was manual and clerical in nature she was a workman, fully entitled to the benefit of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. But her such claim has been vehemently denied by the appellant School who have taken a plea that the respondent's job being of teaching was neither manual nor clerical in mature. Therefore, according to learned, counsel of the appellant School she was not a workman and could not invoke the aforesaid Ordinance in support of her case.
4. I have duly considered the arguments addressed at the bar. The respondent was admittedly a lady Teacher and her job was teaching which prima facie is neither manual nor clerical in nature. It is performed by lectures or by short verbal discussion. Of course some Teachers are in the habit of writing notes for preparing lectures and discourses. Sometime they are also required to write on Black-boards for the purpose of explaining the subject of Issues they are teaching. They are also required to check copies of the students. But I am of firm view that preparing notes or writing on Blackboard or checking of copies which undoubtedly involves some sort of manual labour and clerical work is only incidental to the main job of teaching for which mental power and capacity are needed. By no stretch of imagination teaching can be regarded as manual or clerical work in nature. I am fortified in my view by some precedent cases which I would like to discuss presently.
5. The first case in the ,cries is of this Tribunal reported as 1990 PLC 675.It is relied upon by the Advocate of respondent lady Teacher. It was a case of School Teacher whose services were terminated by the School Management. She filed grievance petition in the Labour Court against the termination of her services. Her petition was resisted by the School Management mainly on the ground that she was not a workman. The petition was dismissed by the Lower Court but the appeal filed in the Labour Appellate Tribunal was allowed by my learned Predecessor Mr. Justice (Retd.)
Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi holding that the appellant Teacher was a workman and Standing Orders Ordinance was applicable to her.
6. Disagreeing with the above views my another learned Predecessor Mr. Justice (Retd.) Mushtak Ali Kazi held in Appeal No,Kar.76 of 1997 (unreported) as under:- "I am, therefore, inclined to hold the view that Schools, Hospitals and other Welfare Organizations such as Cheritable Service Organisation run by Edhi, do not fall within the definition of Industrial or Commercial Establishment nor would Teachers come within the definition of worker under the I.R.O.
Or the Standing Orders Ordinance as doing manual, siklled or unskilled work or clerical work.
Teachers impart knowledge acquired by them through intellectual studies. The imparting of education cannot, therefore, be considered to be menual or clerical work, attracting provisions of Standing Orders and I.R.O. It is something which has been considered as pious and noble.
Professors occupy the highest position in society as intellectuals in Islam. We will not bring them and their work at par with manual labourers or workers."
' I am in complete agreement with the views of Justice (Retd.) Mushtak Ali Kazi as they support my thinking as has been pointed out above. Reference may also be made to the Karachi case reported as 1981 PLC 403. It was heard and decided by the Division Bench consisting of Zafar Hussain Mirza and Salim Akhtar, JJ. of the Sindh High Court. The view expressed in that case was that the ' service' occurring in definition of Industry as defined in section 2(xiv) of Industrial Relations Ordinance had wide connotation inasmuch as that service rendered by University and Board of Education entirely depends upon contribution of learning, research, study, knowledge of men of letters, and therefore, the benefit which a student gets or community at large receives from University is completely different and distinguishable from definition of service which is provided to community with use of something such as Hotel, electric power, transportation, mail delivery etc. Such distinctive character of University or Board of Education distinguishes them from Institution providing material service. This absence of material nature of service keeps the University and Board out of pale of word ' Industry'. It was further expressed in that case that duties performed by employees of the University and Board, incidental, ancillary or and adjunct to main object and purpose University and Board cannot determine their character. Therefore, they held that University and Board cannot be termed as Industry.
7. It may also be useful to refer to the Supreme Court authority reported as PLD 1988 SC 180 wherein it was held:-- "The test for determining the question whether an employee is a workman within the meaning of various statutes in the field of labour legislation is well-settled.It is the nature of the work done by the employee that would be the essential and fundamental consideration for determining the question and not his designation which is not conclusive. The question to be examined is whether manual or clerical work is incidental to the main work or a substantial part of it, so that, the. Flu a person employed in supervisory capacity does some manual or clerical work as ancillary or incidental to such employment has been held not to bring him within the ambit of the definition.
The main features, the pith and substance of his employment must be manual or clerical before the definition is attracted."
8. The respondent was admittedly a Teacher. The word 'Teacher' as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) means "one who teaches or instructs; especially one whose business or occupation is to teach others". Again the word 'teach' is defined in the same Dictionary which means:- "to impart knowledge by means of lessons; to give instruction in; communicating knowledge; introducing into or impressing on the mind as truth or information, and may be done as well through written communication, personal direction, through the Public Press, or through any means by which information may be disseminated. Thus, from the definition of words' teacher' and 'teach' it is clear that one of the jobs of a teacher is to impress upon the minds of students information through written communication. A teacher has to teach the students not only to read but also how to write."
' Therefore, it was part of her teaching to write on Black-board or in the copies of the students and checking and correcting of the writings of the students. As pointed out above though such work involved manual and clerical labour yet it was only incidental or ancillary to her main job of teaching and would not put her in the category of workman.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the lady teacher was not a workman as defined in the aforesaid two Ordinances and consequently the benefit thereof was not available to her. I regret my inability to support the findings of the learned Labour Court which are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.