Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. QSA‑125 of 1984, decided on 4th December, 1984.
‑‑Ss. 2 (xix) & 25‑A‑‑"Industry" ‑Industrial Technical Institute imparting training, charging fee for training and selling machinery parts manufactured in process of training‑Not an industry to make labour laws applicable‑ Grievance petition of employee of such Institution seeking re‑instatement in service, held, rightly not enter tained by Labour Court on grounds of jurisdiction.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellant.
Javed Altaf for Respondent.
Date of hearing :10th November, 1984.
The appeal captioned above challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 27th February, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that the respondent being not an industry, the Court had no jurisdiction.
2. The appellant was a Clerk in the respondent Institute and was dismissed from service on the ground of absence for more than ten days without leave. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondent charges heavy tuition fee and prepares spare parts and other machinery and sells the same, it is an industry. The case of the respondent in this respect is that the respondent imparts training to the students and does not earn profit, so is not an industry. This is true that Rs. 1,65,000 were charged from the Government to impart training to 25 students but this amount does not appear to be exorbitant. The fee per student comes to Rs. 6,600. This amount was not charged per month but for the whole period of training. If the period of training was six months, then fee comes to Rs. 1,100 p. m. which in these hard days is not much. Rs. 1,65,000 were charged as fee for six students for six months, which per month comes to Rs. 2,750. Fee per student comes to Rs. 458.33 only. This is true that spare parts are prepared and other machinery is manufactured and sold. For imparting practical training to the students, manufacturing of machinery is necessary. After it is prepared, it has to be sold and it would be unwise to destroy the same. Articles are not prepared for being sent to the market. They are sold as of necessity to meet the expenses of imparting training. The respondent Institute does not claim to be a charitable Institute, so charging of fee from the student would not make Labour Laws applicable. This is not necessary that an educational Institution should run at a loss. If there is profit, it may be spent on the Institution and there is no evidence that it was shared by any person. It is difficult to maintain an educational institution on donations only. Donations are not fixed and permanent source of income. Donations cannot be recovered by force. So an educational institution should have a permanent source of income for its existence and efficient working. Charging of fee from the students, therefore, would make no difference. The documentary evidence in the shape of Exh. D‑15 amply shows that there is no profit. The appellant has produced no documentary evidence to rebut the said docu ment. His witness P.W. 1 has, to the contrary, disproved the plea of the appellant.
3. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the plea of the appellant is that he remained ill throughout the period of his absence and, therefore, neither could join duty nor participate in the enquiry. But the medical certificates do not cover the total period of absence. Vide certificate Exh. P. 10 rest was recommended from 18th July, 1979 to 2nd August, 1979 only, whereas his continuous absence is from the date prior to that. Dr. Farasat Ali, whose certificate he sent to the respondent, informed vide Exh. D‑1 that the appellant had consulted him only once on 8th June, 1979, when he was advised rest of one month and that thereafter he never visited him. So the appellant failed to prove that in reality he throughout the period of his absence remained ill.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge‑sheet was time‑barred. No such plea was raised in the grievance petition, so the respondent, being unaware of it, did not meet it in evidence. At the appellate stage it is too late to raise a question of fact.
5. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer