Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-311 of 1980, decided on 13th June, 1982.

---S.1(f)--Question whether Medical Colleges fail within exceptions enumerated in clause (f) or come within definition of industrial or commercial establishments--Labour Court returned petition for want Of jurisdiction on first preliminary objection holding that Medical Colleges are excluded from purview of Ordinance, 1969--Tribunal setting aside order and remanded case for deciding on merits on remaining preliminary objections.

M. Akhtar Chughtai for Appellant.

Farooq Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Qamar Riaz Hussain for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Date of hearing: 1st June, 1982.

This appeal arises from-the decision dated 16-3-1980 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby he holding that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, returned the petition for presentation to the proper forum. The learned lower Court decided the preliminary objection only. The preliminary objection reads as under:-

"This Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition because a separate Tribunal has been set up under law to entertain and adjudicate upon such matters."

No reason has been given for which according to the respondent, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is barred. Even the name of the Tribunal, which, according to the respondents, is competent to hear this case, has not been disclosed. In reality during the pendency of the grievance petition section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was amended in 1979 and clause (f) was added to it which reads as under:-

"by an establishment maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons."

2. It was argued before the lower Court on behalf of the respondent that the King Eward Medical College wlis covered by clause (f) whereas on behalf of the appellant it was argued before the lower Court that the King Edward Medical College was not a hospital, but a Medical College and thus was not covered by the newly-added clause. The observations made by the lower Court on the point read as under:-

"The function of the Medical College is to produce medical practitioners (doctors). In other words, students in the Medical Colleges are imparted education so as to qualify themselves for practice in the Hospitals or to run private practice. Hospital without doctors cannot function. Thus, education in medicine and surgery is given to the students in Medical Colleges so as to prepare them for practice in the hospitals. The main function of the doctors also is to treat and care the infirm and sick persons. In this view of the matter, I have to take that Medical Colleges also are excluded from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969."

According to the learned trial Judge, since the doctors give treatment to the sick and infirm persons and since the Medical Colleges produce doctors, therefore, the Medical Colleges are covered by the exceptional clause and are excluded from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I cannot endorse this view. Since in the Medical Colleges treatment is not given to the sick and infirm persons, but medical education is imparted to the students, obviously the said Colleges and Institutions are not covered by the newly-added clause (f) to section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The point which in respect of educational institution arises is whether they come within the definition of industrial or commercial establishment, or industry, but since no such point was raised in the written reply by the respondent, no evidence was led by the parties on the point and, therefore, this aspect of the case cannot be looked into the present appeal.

3. The proper thing for the respondents was to raise a plea by amendment of the written statement that the King Edward Medical College was not an industry, or industrial establishment. I, therefore, accept the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand the case for decision on merits and the remaining preliminary objections.

M.I.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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