Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GT‑487 of 1982/Pb., decided on 21st March, 1983.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑

‑‑ Ss. 1 (3) (f ), 25‑A & 37 = Employee of Social Security Dispensary seeking, redress against removal from service‑Petition dismissed by Labour Court holding that Dispensary being exempt under S. 1 (3) (f) Labour Court had no jurisdiction ‑ Hospitals, held, though exempt but if dispensary was a part of Social Security Institution and not a separate and independent establishment it would not be exempted‑Division of Labour Court in circumstances, set aside and case remanded for re‑decision after obtaining evidence on point whether or not such dispensary was, a separate entity.

Ch. Fazal Elahi for Appellant.

Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 29‑7‑1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, .Punjab Lahour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed, holding that since he was employed in the dispensary which is exempted under clause (f) of section: I : (3) of . the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction‑ The learned lower Court relied upon its own previous decision given in the case Laviza Bibi v. Social Security Institution, decided on 3‑6‑1981.

2. This is true ‑ that hospitals have been exempted under section 1 (3) (f ) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but it is yet to be determined if the dispensary where the appellant was employed is a separate and independent establishment or is a part of the Social Security Institution. If it is separate, of course the same is exempted from the operation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but if it is a part of Social Security then clause (f) would not apply. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that only for the sake of giving medical aid, Social Security has been established. The establishment has manifold functions to perform, out of which, one is to give medical aid to the secured employees. They are, for example, injury benefits, death grants, disablement gratuity, taking up measures for improving health and welfare of secured employees and to undertake measures for the rehabilitation and. settlement of disabled and injured secured persons. Without inviting evidence it could not be decided whether or not the dispensary was. a separate entity or was a part of the Social Security Institution:

3. As upshot of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for re-decision in the light of the observations made above.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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