Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑579 of 1982,‑ heard on 28th March, 1983.

West Pakistan

--‑‑ S. 2 (b) & (f) and S. O. 12 (3)‑Commercial ‑ or industrial establishment‑Pakistan Institute of Management a unit of Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation set up by Government to promote management development within industrial and commercial organisations with membership both of industrial and commercial business organisations as well as individual membership of executives of such organisations‑Main object to prepare and offer training courses to staff of such organisations‑Not having features of club i.e. of association of persons for social intercourse ‑Not a club -Functions not such as could be assimilated to normal commercial and industrial organisation but training and education institution- Provisions of Ordinance, held, not applicable to employees of such organisation‑Employee of such Institution, held, not. entitled to grievance petition against termination of service‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.

Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 5, p. 252 ; Ballentine's Law Dictionary ; Webster's Third New International Dictionary ; U. S, v. Lamboth, C. A. Or. 176 F 2d 810 (811) arid K. (7, Old v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court P L D 1976 Lah. 1077 rel.

Ali Amjad for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 28th March, 1983.

DECISION

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court, given on 6th November, 1982, dismissing the grievance petition preferred by the appellant challenging his dismissal from service by the respondent Organisation vide order dated 15th‑July, 1983.

2. The admitted facts of this case are that the appellant was appointed as Attendant in the respondent Organization in May, 1966. He was first promoted as Junior Clerk and thereafter as Senior Clerk on 4th May, 1977. On 30th June, 1982, he was charge‑sheeted. The material portion of the charge‑sheet reads as follows :‑

(i) He incited a number of employees to leave office at 12‑30 p. m. on 24th June, 1982 in contravention of the orders dated 23rd June, 1982 concerning office hours during the month of Holy Ramazan and forced them to leave office which constitutes gross misconduct on his part.

(ii) He refused to accept Memorandum No. MI/Adm/648, dated 26th June, 1982 to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the offence mentioned in the preceding sub‑paragraph, from the Manager (A&A) in the presence of Mr. M. Miskeen, Assistant, for which he is guilty of wilful breach and evasion of lawful orders.

(iii) Subsequently on 26th June, 1982 he also refused to accept Memo randum No. MI/AdmJ648, dated 26th June, 1982 when asked by the Director in his office to accept it in the presence of Mr. S. Q. H. Rizvi. Manager (A&A), Mr. S. Hameedullah, P. S. to Director and Mr. M. Zakaria, S. G. Assistant. The Director gave him yet another opportunity to accept this Memorandum and he refused again. The Director then told him that for misconduct and insubordination he was suspended and that written orders would follow.

(vi) On 27th June, 1982 he refused to accept the orders of suspension bearing No. MI/Adm/648, dated 27th June, 1982 from Manager (A & A) in the presence of Mr. Fazal Hussain, Assistant, Mr. M. Miskeen, Assistant and Mr. Razzak Ismail Jr. Clerk (T), which constitutes insubordination and further misconduct on his part.

(v) On 28th June, 1982, Mr. M. lshaq Khan in his letter, dated 28th June, 1982 addressed to the Director has made a false statement inasmuch as he had expressed unawareness about the circumstances leading to his suspension and his repeated refusal to accept show cause notice as well as orders of suspension. His immediate superior the Programme Officer also communicated to him verbally the said orders on 27th June, 1982 and relieved him of his duties from that date."

A domestic enquiry on the basis of the above charge‑sheet was held and on the basis of the report and the findings of the Enquiry Officer the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal through a grievance petition preferred before the learned Fifth Labour Court. The respondent organization resisted the appellant's grievance petition mainly on the ground that it was essentially an educa tional institution providing instructive courses for personnel of various establishments in personnel, production and finance management and other allied matters. The learned Labour Court mainly relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Ishaque Khan v: Pakistan Institute of Management held that the respondent Organization was an educational institution and hence the provisions of the Sind Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable to it and its employees and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his services under the provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O.

3. The sole issue which has been canvassed before me by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the appellant, is whether the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance are applicable to the employees of the respondent Organization and the appellant was entitled to file and maintain his grievance petition against termination of his services. It was strongly urged by the learned counsel that the respondent Organization was a commercial establishment for the purposes of the aforesaid Ordinance, specifically a club. He contended that originally the respondent Organiza tion was functioning as a unit of the P. I. D. C. which is an industrial and commercial organization, and that further it has the basic characteristics, of a club in that it has different types o: members which are mainly industrial and commercial organizations. The learned counsel also referred to the services offered by the respondent Organization to its members, which include the loaning of hooks, and training films, supply of free copies of the Institute's Journals and counseling services of the Institute's faculty, to advise and assist organizations in the application of manage ment concepts and techniques. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent organization had been permitted by a notification issued by the Federal Government to register itself under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, though it was not known whether it was actually registered itself under the said act or not. The learned counsel also relied upon the definition of "club" as contained in Halsbury's Laws of England and submitted that the definition was wide enough to cover the respondent Organization.

4. Before examining the various contentions of Mr. Ali Amjad, I may point out that the reason for Mr. Ali Amjad in attempting to show that the respondent Organization was a club is that a club falls within the definition of a commercial establishment as given in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edition), Volume 5, page 252 ; "'club" has been defined as follows:‑

"A club may be defined as a society of persons associated together for Social intercourse, for the promotion of politics, sport, art, science, or literature, or for any purpose except the acquisition of gain. The acquisition must be private and have some element of performance. The purpose of social intercourse may be combined with any other purpose, subject to the exception mentioned. The acquisition of gain does not destroy the nature of a club if it is merely incidental to its proper purposes. The purposes for which a club exists may be altered or modified, and there is no rule of law that requires a club to fulfil each and every separate purpose for which it was Originally formed.

The essential feature of a club according to the above definition appears to be the association of persons for social intercourse. This purpose may, of course, be combined with other purposes and objects. This essential feature of club is wholly wanting in the instant case.. as will presently be shown. Before that. I may refer to some other definitions of "club". In 3allentine's Law Dictionary, "club" has been defined as ; an organization or association of persons who meet together for the purpose of social intercourse or some common object such as the pursuit of literature, science, politics, art and athletic pursuits or sports, such as swimming, tennis and golf." The above definition is based on the American Decision in the case of United Cerebral Palsy Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word "club" has been defined as "an association of persons for social and recreational purposes or for the promotion of some common object (as literature,. science, political activity) use, jointly supported and meeting periodically, membership in social clubs usu. being conferred by ballot and carrying the privileges of use. of the club property.". According to Words and Phrase, Volume 1, A, page 64, the name "club" derives from the Anglo Saxon "cleofan" and indicates a division of the reckoning. The theory is one of joint expenditure. In the same volume at page 65, "club" has been defined as :‑‑‑

"A "club" is an association of persons who meet for social intercourse or other common object. Membership is usually limited and conferred by ballot and carries the privilege of exclusive use of club quarters."

The above definition is based on the decision in the case of U. S. v. Lamboth, Cr. A. Or. (196 F 2d.810;811).

5. All the above definitions seem to indicate that an essential feature 4 a club is social intercourse which feature is wanting in the instant case.

6. The respondent Organization was established in 1954 by the Government of Pakistan. It was originally set up, as already indicated, as a unit of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation. , The object of the Government in establishing the respondent institute was to promote management development within the industrial and commercial organization in the country. The background for the establishment of the said Institute is that in 1952 the Ministry of Labour, Government of Pakistan, signed an agreement with the I. L. O. under which the services of an expert, Mr. C. J. Harrower, were provided for the purposes of developing a National Training Programme. On the basis of survey of in‑service requirements of Pakistan Industries conducted by him, the Government was of the view that introduction of such programme was necessary to cope with the ever increasing tempo of industrialization in the country. It was in consequence of this Resolution that the respondent Institute was set up. The Institute's training and research activities are mainly in the following areas : (1) General Management, (2) Financial Management, (3) Production Manage ment, (4) Marketing Management, (5) Personnel Management, (6) Supervisory and in‑company Training, and (7) Management Research. The Institute from time to time offers training courses of varying periods in the above fields .and other fields as may be considered necessary and has trained a very large number of personnel belonging to different Organiza tions. It appears that the respondent Organization has a scheme under which it enrolls contributory members as well as institutional members. The institutional members pay reduced course fees for the staff which undergo training in the courses prepared and offered by the respondent Organization while the contributory members pay a lump sum annually and do not pay for the individual courses for their nominees. Both types of members are mainly industrial and commercial organizations. The services offered to member organizations include loaning .of books and training films, free copies of the Institute's journal and counseling services of the Institute's faculty on request to organise and assist organizations in the application of management concepts and techniques. Furthermore, special in‑company courses are also conducted for members organizations. In addition to these member organizations, it appears that the respondent Institute also has individual memberships of four different categories, known as Associates, Associate Members, Members and Honorary Life Members. Only those persons are eligible to the Associates who are Executives having practical and appropriate professional qualifications. Associate Members have to be Executives with at least five years' experience in responsible position while only those persons are eligible for full membership who have attended training courses of a period not less than eight weeks. Honorary Life Membership is conferred with the approval of the Institute's Board of Governors on persons of outstanding reputation and ability as senior executives with demonstrated interest in the promotion of modern management concepts and techniques in business and industry.

7. There is no doubt that the respondent Institute does have a membership both of institutions (industrial, commercial and business) as well as individual memberships restricted to executives of such organizations, but the main and essential function of the respondent Institute is to prepare and offer training courses to the staff of industrial, commercial and business organizations and institutions. The Institute functions under a Board of Governors, which has been established and .appointed by the Federal Government under Notification, dated 15th November, 1976. All the members of the Board are ex officio and hold office in the Government itself or in a corporation or institution established or wholly controlled by the Government. The Institute and its Board of Governors, thus, cannot be equated with a club as the term normally and usually is understood. Furthermore, according to the Notification of the Government published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, dated 16th November, 1976 in the event of the winding up of the Institute, all properties and assets vesting in the Board of Governors/institute are to revert to Government of Pakistan. Such a provision, obviously, could not be made in the case of a club. It is now well=settled that educational and training institutions do not come within the purview of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employ ment (Standing Orders) Ordinance,. 1968, In the case of Pakistan Central Cotton Committee Karachi v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court 111 and others, the question which arose for decision by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court was whether the provisions of tile Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were applicable to the Punjab Agricultural Research Institute, Lyallpur, and whether the institute was an industry fur the purposes of the said Ordinance. It was held that the function of the Punjab Agricultural Research Institute was to undertake educational and technical research carried out by educational institutions and that further it was a non‑profit organization. Relying on the decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of K. G. Old v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court (P L D 1976 Lah.1077) it was held that the Punjab Agricultural Research Institute was not an industry and labour laws were not applicable to it and its employees.

6. In the instant case, the respondent Institute has not been set up or established by its members or any member organizations but by the Government and its assets and liabilities, upon winding up or the Institute ceasing to exist, will be the assets and liabilities of the Government of Pakistan. Looking to its functions and purposes as appears from the documents filed by Mr. Ali Amjad himself I am of the considered view that the respondent Institute is a training and educational institution and its functions cannot be assimilated to the normal commercial and industrial organizations despite the fact that it has been set up for the purposes of advising industrial and commercial organizations and it has membership of such organizations. It may be pointed out that apart from its members, other organizations and individuals may take advantage of the training courses offered by the respondent Institute but upon payment of prescribed fees for such courses.

9. The upshot. of the above discussion is that in my view the respondent Organization is neither a commercial establishment nor an industrial establishment for the purposes of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and hence the provisions of the said Ordinance will not be applicable to its employees, and, accordingly, the learned Labour Court has rightly held o that the appellant, who admittedly was an employee of the respondent Organization, was not entitled to file a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal in limine.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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