Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MI‑549 of 19811 Pb., decided on 15th February, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXII1 of 1969)‑---

--‑‑S. 1 (3) (f) [as inserted vide Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (LI of 1979))‑Hospital-Establishment maintained for treatment of employees not as separate entity but a part and parcel of other establishment to which Ordinance applicable‑Not exempted‑Conversely a small workshop established for repairs of hospital equipments not being a separate entity‑Would not be industrial establishment but part of hospital exempt from operation of Ordinance.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Appellant.

Asghar Mahmood for Respondent..

Date of hearing : 8th February, 1983.

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 25th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad whereby .the grievance petition of the appellant for his re instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a dispenser in the hospital established by the respondent for the treatment of its employee's. On account of absence for more than ten days his services were terminated. His case is that he had sent an application for leave duly supported by a medical certi ficate but he was treated absent and terminated. The learned lower Court has dismissed the petition only on the ground that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the hospital wherein the appellant was employed. This is true that by the second amending Ordinance, 1979 clause ( f ) was added to section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, according to which, Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to any person employed by an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons, but it is necessary to see if such an establishment' is a separate entity or is a part and parcel of some other establishment to which Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 applies. The very order or termination of the appellant shows that the Hospital in which the appellant was employed is not an independent establishment. The order has been passed not by any Medical Superintendent; Health Director, other medical board, but the Project Manager, Makerwal Collieries. The hospital, therefore is a part of the Collieries and is being run by it. This is an admit ted fact that the hospital has been established for the treatment of ailin employees of the Collieries. Since Makerwal Collieries is an industrial estab lishment and an industry, its every portion and component part enjoys the e same status. Likewise if in a hospital a small workshop has been established for the repairs of the hospital equipments and machinery to workshop not being a separate entry would not be an industrial establish ment, but a part of hospital and would be exempted from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under clause ( f ) of section 1. The learned lower Court has, therefore, wrongly held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the hospital part of the respondent.

3. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision on merits.

A.E. 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.