THEPROJECT MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GOLA KHEL COLLIERIES, DISTRICT MIANWALI vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE And 2 Others

MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.--Fazal Karim, respondent No. 2 was working as a Dispenser in a Hospital established by the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation at Makerwal for the care and treatment of their employees working in the Collieries. He was on leave for one year. He later asked for extension in leave, which was refused. His services, subsequently, were terminated w.e.f.

4-2-1981 giving him all the benefits due to him at that stage. Fazal Karim challenged his termination in Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad, where a question arose whether Industrial Relations Ordinance applied to the case of the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 1(3)(f) of the I.R.O., 1969. The Labour Court, vide its order, dated 25-8-1981 found that the I.R.O. Was not applicable to the case of the petitioner and dismissed the application. In appeal, however, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its order, dated 15-2-1983 has found that I.R.O. Will be applicable as the hospital was only an adjunct of the Collieries and not a separate entity. The case was remanded back to the trial Court for decision on merits. This order has been assailed in the present writ petition.

2. Clause (f) was added to subsection (3) of section 1 by an amending Ordinance of 1979. Under this clause the I.R.O. Was made inapplicable to persons employed by an establishment maintained for the treatment and care of sick and infirm persons. The question whether this exclusion applied only to hospitals as such, or also, to the hospitals which were attached with other industrial or commercial establishments, was answered by the Hon'ble Karachi High Court in the case of Mrs. Naseem Sadique v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and others. It was held that a Nurse of a Railway Hospital at Karachi could not take advantage of the I.R.O. As her case was covered by clause (f) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the I.R.O. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the case of Muhammad Aqil v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another PLD 1978 Kar. 649 in order to show that an employer may have more than one establishments and that the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation hospital attached with the Collieries should be treated as a separate and independent establishment even though it was maintained by the P.M.D.C. There is merit in the submission as one cannot lose sight of the fact that the exclusionary clause introduced by the amending Ordinance, 1979 was meant to protect establishment like hospitals from the vicissitudes of industrial action.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the case of K.G. Old, Principal, Christian Technical Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and six others PLD 1976 Lah. 1097 in order to show that the present hospital was an institution ancillary to the main establishment at Makerwal which was engaged in mining operations. But in our view the Lahore case referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hospital cannot be compared to a workshop attached to an educational institution meant for imparting training to the students. While the workshop, under these circumstances, will be an ancillary to an B educational institution, the hospital is not so. On the other hand, the facts of the Karachi case, Mrs. Naseem Sadique v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1984 PLC 1679 are analogous to the facts of the present case.

4. In view of the above considerations the writ petition is allowed.

The orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 15-2-1983 are declared to be of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.

A.A.