DECISION ' This appeal arises from order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dismissing grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. For reinstatement and back benefits filed by an Assistant employed by North Nazimabad Branch of the City School.
2. The appellant was employed as Office Assistant on 4-11-1992 at Nazimabad Branch of City School. He was dismissed from service on 29-8-1993 without holding any domestic enquiry as provided in the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Office Assistant served grievance notice on respondent City School and the Headmistress and filed grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court held that the City School was an Educational Institution that did not answer the description of an Industrial or Commercial Establishment within the meaning of I.R.O. And the Standing Orders. That moreover a teacher cannot be considered to be a workman as defined in the I.R.O. And had it not been established that the School employed 20 or more workmen in the Nazimabad Unit so as to attract the application of the I.R.O. And Sanding Orders. The Labour Court accordingly held that the grievance petition was not maintainable under section 25-A of the I.R.O. And the same was dismissed as being not maintainable.
3. Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa has preferred this appeal on the ground that a School run by a Limited Company is an Industrial or Commercial Establishment and a teacher employed in the school is a worker. He has tried to quote some decisions including a Tribunal decision of. Justice (Retd.)
Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi in case of Beacon House school reported in Mrs. Nishat Aslam v. Messrs Beacon House Public School (Pvt.) Limited 1990 PLC 675. In that case a teacher on being dismissed filed petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. This was dismissed on the ground that teacher was not a workman and it was not established that 20 workers were employed in the School Establishment.
The teacher in this case was found to be inefficient as she failed to improve her teaching standards. It was held that this was not a misconduct under Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance and order of termination was therefore illegal. The question of school being a Commercial Establishment was not examined at length in that decision. The learned Advocate cannot say if this decision was called in question in Constitutional Petition in the High Court.
4 .The other case cited is of Don Basco High School PLD 1989Supreme Court 128 on the, point of "ejusdem generis". This case is regarding Old-Age Benefits Act. The facts of this case relate to establishment rendering services to public for profit or gain. It was argued that school is not run for profit or gain but Clubs. Hostels or Messes though not run for profit or gain were included in Commercial Establishment. The judgment of Sindh High Court was upheld. The application for Leave to Appeal was dismissed.
5. Under Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, Order 1(4)(a) the Ordinance applies to Industrial or Commercial Establishment employing 20 or more workers.
The scope of the Ordinance is limited only to such classes of Commercial Establishments are enumerated from 1 to 14 while Industrial Establishments are shown from 1 to 11. A school is not specified nor has hospital been specified under Commercial Establishment. These are shown as firms and Commercial Agencies, Insurance and Banking Companies, Clubs, Hotels, Restaurants, Cinemas, Theatres etc . Ejusdem generis under Factories or Railways Construction Industry.
6. Under the I.R.O. Section 2(xiv)(ix) establishment means any office, firm, industrial unit, undertaking, shop or premises in which workmen are employed for the purpose of carrying on industry. Under sub-clause (14) industry means any business, trade or manufacture, calling service, employment or occupation. None of these examples include a School, College or University.
National Book Foundation has been held not an industry within meaning of section 2(xiv), I.R.O. As held by Karachi High Court in 1980 PLC 305. It was held by Sindh. High Court in the case of Jamia Karachi 1981 PLC 403 that service is to be distinguished from material service. That University and Board cannot be termed as Industry as services rendered by University and Board of Education entirely depend on learning, research study and knowledge by men or teachers." School, College or University do not render material service. Absence of material nature of service keeps them out of pale of word "industry" they cannot be termed as industry.
7. The question whether activity of running an Educational Institution would fall within the definition of an industry was touched upon but left undecided by the Supreme Court of India. But this question whether the work of imparting education was an industry, was considered in the case of University of Delhi v. Ram Nath. The Court held that education is not an industry for two reasons viz.:--
(i) The teachers are not workmen;
(ii) The work of the University cannot be assimilated to the post of any trade, business or calling on service.
8. Education therefore, could not be treated as an industry though in Bangalore Water Supply case it was held that the true test is predominant nature of the activity. In case of the University or in Educational Institution, the nature of the activity being ex hypothesi education or service to the community, a contrary view was taken; but the question was not in issue and the view was taken merely as obiter dicta.
9. This decision of, Indian Supreme Court in Banglore Water Supply case has been referred to, enpassent, in a decision of Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 1977 SCMR 66, regarding interpretation of the word "industry" in Educational institution". But the case was concerning Employees' Old-Age Benefits. Thus the superior Courts have considered this question and given their views as obiter dicta, under different sets of facts.
10. I am therefore, inclined to hold the view that schools, hospitals and other Welfare Organisations such as Charitable Service Organisation run by Edhi, do not fall within the definition of Industrial or Commercial Establishment nor would teachers come within the definition of workers under the I.R.O. Or the Standing Orders as doing manual, skilled or unskilled work or clerical work. Teachers impart knowledge acquired by them through intellectual studies. Under Islam human beings are enjoined as a duty to acquire knowledge and impart knowledge to others and so earn the blessings of God. Otherwise, human being without knowledge is not a human being but is considered to be as an animal, such as a goat. The imparting of education cannot therefore be considered to be manual or clerical work, attracting provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance 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 on par with manual labourers or workers.
11. Under the circumstances the decision of the Labour Court that schools are not Industrial or Commercial Establishments and teachers are not workers, is maintained and this appeal is dismissed in limine.