Muhammad Ishaque son of Sher Zaman having first been appointed as dispenser on 12-10-1980 and having again been appointed on 5-10-1986 as dresser in the Hospital of Pakchina Fertilizers Ltd., on 25-8-1996 his services were terminated. His petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance succeeded before learned Labour Court, Haripur on 7-4-2000. He was reinstated in service and hence this Appeal No,26 of 2000 by Managing Director, Pakchina Fertilizers Limited. Muhammad Ishaque has also filed Appeal No,33 of 2000 for back benefits. Both shall be decided through this single judgment.
2. It is an admitted fact that Muhammad Ishaque, throughout, had remained appointed as a technician in the hospital, which is established by Pakchina Fertilizers Limited. The latter had come up with the objection that under section 1(f) of the I.R.O., 1969. The employee having worked in the hospital, the provisions of I.R.O. Were not applicable to him. The learned Labour Court in its impugned judgment was of the view that the hospital was not an independent Organization but instead was an establishment of Pakchina Fertilizers Ltd. And hence Muhammad Ishaque being an employee of Pakchina Fertilizers Limited, the exemption clause of section 1(0 of the I.R.O., was not attracted.
3. A similar situation had come up before Lahore High Court in "Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal" (1986 PLC 521). Therein also, was an hospital run by Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation. The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court concluded that the exclusion clause would include hospital set up by Industrial or Commercial Establishment for treatment of workers and sick persons. The situation in hand is identical with the above ruling.
4. Similarly, Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi had established a Cadet College, the employees whereof brought a dispute before Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh. Though the main establishment was Pakistan Steel Mills yet the application of I.R.O., was excluded because the College was an Educational Institution. (1993 PLC 434).
5. Again, a similar question came up before an Hon'ble Division Bench of Karachi High Court "Mrs. Naseem Sadiq v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal" (1984 PLC 1679). There too, the main establishment was Pakistan Railways and the employees were from the hospital run by the Railways Department. It was held that section 1(3)(f) of the I.R.O., was applicable and the hospital was excluded from the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance. Our own Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No,70 of 1996, "Khurshid Anwar v. Chairman, T&T Colony, Haripur" decided on 27- 6-1996, had given similar verdict.
6. In view of case-law on the subject, the employees of the hospital of Pakchina Fertilizers Limited cannot invoke the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Such charitable Institution is excluded from the operation, under section 1(3)(t) of the I.R.O. In this view of the matter Appeal No,26 of 2000 of Pakchina Fertilizers Limited is accepted, that of Muhammad Ishaque (33 of 2000) is dismissed and the grievance petition filed by Muhammad Ishaque under section 25-A of the I.R.O., is hereby dismissed.