IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam 
Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Civil Review Petitions No.310, 311 AND 217 OF 2018 
ALONGWITH CMA No.7552/2020. 
(Against the judgment dated 28.3.2018 passed by this Court in 
CAs No.970 AND 971 of 2013 – CMA for permission to argue the 
case) 
 
Shaheen Airport Services 
Petitioners (In 310-311/18)   
MCB Bank Ltd. 
Petitioner    (In 217/18)   
Versus 
National Industrial Relations Commission thr. 
its Chairman, etc. 
 
  Respondents (In 310-311/18)   
Tariq Zameer Siddiqui, etc. 
  Respondents (In 217/18)   
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
: 
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. ASC (via video link) 
Mr. Rashid Anwar, ASC (In 310-311/18)   
 
For the Petitioner (s) 
 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC (In 217/18)   
 
For the Respondent(s) 
: 
Mr. Sohail Mahmood, Addl. AGP 
Mr. Ayyaz Shaukat, DAG 
Mr. Ibrar Saleem, Dy. Reg. NIRC 
 
For Govt. of Punjab 
 
Ch. Faisal Farid, Addl. AG Punjab 
Rab Nawaz Zahid Director IRI 
Fazal Hussain, Director Labour 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
07.12.2020 
Judgment 
 
Sajjad Ali Shah, J. (CMA 7552/2020) In view of the fact that 
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. ASC for the review petitioner was provided an 
opportunity to address the Court through video-link from his Office, 
therefore, this application seeking permission to argue the case through an 
alternate counsel has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.  
CRPs No. 310 & 311 of 2018: The petitioner-Shaheen Airport Service 
seeks review of para 22 of our judgment dated 28.3.2018 which reads as 
follows:- 
“22. There is yet another question involved in the matter, 
namely, the appellant-Shaheen Airport Services is a 
charitable organization or not. It is the case of the appellant 
that charitable organizations are excluded from the 
operation of both the federal and provincial law, therefore, 
regardless of the question whether the appellant is a trans-
CRPs 310 & 311 of 2018   
2 
provincial establishment for purposes of the federal law or 
whether it comes within the ambit of the provincial law, the 
appellant falls outside the purview of both the IRA, 2012 
and the SIRA, 2013, resultantly, no trade union can be 
registered within the appellant. In this regard it is to be 
noted that the learned High Court has considered this 
question in detail and has held that the federal law was 
applicable to Shaheen Airport Services as the same was 
operative in more than one province and that Shaheen 
Airport Services did not qualify as a charitable organization 
in view of the activities that were entailed in the operation 
of its business. We are in agreement with the findings of 
the learned High Court.” 
 
2. 
 
Mr. Khalid Anwar learned Sr. ASC for the review-petitioner 
contends that the applicability of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (‘IRA 
2012’) and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (‘SIRA 2013’) to the 
petitioner was assumed on the ground that the High Court has considered 
this question in detail and, therefore, in the judgment under review it was 
maintained that the Federal law was applicable to the petitioner Shaheen 
Airport Services as the petitioner was operative in more than one province 
and that it did not qualify as charitable organization in view of the activities 
that were entailed in the operation of its business. Per counsel such 
findings were per incuriam as IRA 2012 as well as SIRA 2013 expressly 
exclude its application to all business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, 
including fishing, mining, agriculture, extraction, exploration, processing, 
print and electronic media, employment or occupation of producing goods 
or services for sale. In order to support his contention, counsel has referred 
to the provisions of Section 2(xvii) of the IRA 2012 and 2(xvi) of SIRA 2013. 
It was next contended that the findings of the High Court in para 15 of its 
judgment that charity or no charity, it is the activity of the establishment 
that determines whether it falls within the ambit of industry or not and the 
answer to this question posed lies in the definition of word industry as 
given in Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are 
CRPs 310 & 311 of 2018   
3 
erroneous and are based on the assumption that after the repeal of IRO 
2008 through sunset clause on 30.4.2010 and before the promulgation of 
SIRA 2013, the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 stood revive. Again 
such findings are per incuriam and against the law laid down by this Court 
in the case of Air League of PIAC Employees through President vs. Federation 
of Pakistan M/O Labour and Manpower Division Islamabad and others 
(2011 SCMR 1254) wherein it was clearly held that IRA 2012 would be 
applicable retrospectively with effect from 1.5.2010 when the IRO 2008 
ceased to exist. It was, therefore, contended that dislodging the status of 
review petitioner as charitable institution by examining its activities was 
not permissible as envisaged in Sections 2(xvii) of IRA 2012 and 2(xvi) of 
SIRA 2013 and, therefore, the findings of the High Court to that extent were 
per incuriam and consequently the adoption of this Court of such findings 
in para 22 calls for review.  
3. 
 
On the other hand, it was contended that the very status of the 
review petitioner as a charitable institution was questioned and there are 
concurrent findings which assert that the petitioner is not a charitable 
institution. It was contended that if the character of the review petitioner as 
charitable institution is assumed, then there is no denial that the 
applicability of industrial relations laws would be barred as provided in IRA 
2012 and SIRA 2013 as pleaded.  
4. 
 
It is evident from the record that the claim of the review 
petitioner as being a charitable institution through out was declined and 
therefore, was held to be amenable to relevant labour laws and ultimately 
the review petitioner filed the referred petition inter alia, seeking a 
declaration regarding its status as a charitable institution and the High 
Court after hearing the parties, again refused to give such declaration by 
holding:  
“… though Shaheen Foundation may be, and it appears is 
a charitable institution but that cannot be said about the 
CRPs 310 & 311 of 2018   
4 
petitioner’s establishment i.e. SAPS. SAPS only exists for 
making profit. The fact that it yields its profit to Shaheen 
Foundation which in turn uses it for charitable purposes 
could not make SAPS a charitable organization. Doing so 
would tantamount to making, in the words of Justice 
Krishna Iyer “Good Samaritans” into “clever industrialists”.  
   
And ultimately this Court in para 22 upheld such finding that the review 
petitioner is not a charitable institution. Once such finding has come to 
record, the review petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Section 2(xvii) of 
IRA 2012 or of 2(xvi) of SIRA 2013 in order to claim immunity. These review 
petitions consequently fail and are, therefore, dismissed.    
CRP No. 217 of 2018: Due to paucity of time, hearing of this review 
petition is adjourned.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
  
 
 
Islamabad, the 
7th December, 2020 
A. Rehman 
 
Judge 
 
 
Not Approved for Reporting. 
