Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑804 of 1980, decided on 25th October, 1981.

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 2 (xiv) &. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (b) and (f)‑Local Councils and Town Committees Covered by definition of "industry" under Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969‑Essential functions of a Town Committee‑To carry on Local Government functions within its jurisdiction‑Cannot be assimilated either to commercial or industrial functions‑Cannot be deemed to be an "industrial" or "commercial" establishment for purposes of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 unless .performing certain functions like maintaining a workshop or carrying on a specific industry‑Employees of a Town Committee other than those engaged in a workshop or specific industry‑Not workmen for purposes of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Not entitled to grievance petition before Labour Court against termination of service.

Liaquat National Hospital v. Government of Sind P L D 1977 Kar. 843 , and Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed and another 1980 P L C 622 rel.

Mumtaz Ali for Appellant.

Paria Ram for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1981.

This appeal is directed against a decision given by the learned VIIth Labour Court on 18th October, 1980 dismissing the grievance petition filed by the appellant against the termination of his services as Naka Munshi, on the ground that the grievance petition was not maintainable as his employer, the Patio Akil Town Committee was neither an industrial establishment nor a commercial establishment for the purposes of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Establishments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

2. 1 have heard Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqi, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Paria Ram, who appeared for the respondent Town Committee. The sole issue which was canvassed before me by Mr. Mumtaz Ali was that the Pano Akil Town Committee was an industrial establishment and hence the dismissal of the appellant's grievance petition by the learned Labour Court was based on a complete mis‑appreciation of the law on the point in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision by this Tribunal in the case of Mushtaq Ali v. Chairman, Town Committee, Pano Akil decided on 5th January, 1981. That was a case where a grievance petition was filed by a Naka Muhshi against his reversion from the post of Naka Checker to Naka Munshi. In that case, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court, in the case of Liaquat National Hospital v. Government of Sind (I), it was held that local councils are establishments engaged in carrying on an "industry" as defined in the I. R. O., and the provisions of the said Ordinance would be applicable to their employees. I would reiterate the view that I had taken in the above case, as the definition of an "industry" as given in the I. R. O., is wide enough to embrace the services rendered and the functions performed b the local councils and the town committees. However, the issue involved A in the instant case is not whether the Pano Akil Town Committee is carrying on any industry as defined in the I. R. O., but whether the Patio Akil Town Committee is an industrial or commercial establishment, for the purposes of the Standing Orders. This issue arises because the services of the appellant have been terminated and he can only file and maintain a grievance petition under clause (P L D 1977 Kar. 843) of Standing Order 12. In other words, the appellant's grievance Petition is maintainable only if he comes within the definition of "workman" as given in the Standing Orders, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmad and another (1980 P L C 622.). Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqi sought to argue that inasmuch as the Pano Akil Town Committee has constructed shops, which it is giving on rent, and is also constructing and maintaining roads etc. It should be deemed to be both an industrial as well as commercial establishment for the purposes of the Standing Orders. I regret that I see no force in his contention. The essential functions of a town com mittee are to carry on local Government functions within its jurisdiction. Such functions cannot be assimilated either to commercial or industrial functions. A similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Mst. Nawab Bibi (Appeal No. WCK‑2780), decided on 25th November, 1980 wherein it was held that except for certain functions, like maintaining a workshop or carrying on a specific industry, the K. M. C. cannot be considered to be a commercial of industrial establishment and its employees other than those engaged in any such workshops or specific industry, ‑are not workmen for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Relying on that decision, I would uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and would dismiss this appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.