Short answer. Yes. This Title of the Labor Code applies to all establishments or undertakings, whether for profit or not. A non-profit or NGO is not automatically outside its coverage simply because it does not operate to earn a profit — the article makes that status irrelevant to whether the Title applies.
What the law says
The provisions of this Title shall apply to all establishments or undertakings, whether for profit or not.
Labor Code, Article 278 — Who This Title Covers. Read the full provision →
The coverage rule is deliberately broad
Article 278 states the coverage of this Title in a single sentence: "the provisions of this Title shall apply to all establishments or undertakings, whether for profit or not." The phrase "whether for profit or not" is doing the specific work here — it closes off the argument that an organization's non-profit character removes it from this Title's coverage. The article does not list exceptions for charitable, religious, or non-governmental organizations; it states coverage as running to establishments and undertakings generally.
What "establishments or undertakings" covers
The article speaks in terms of "establishments or undertakings" rather than naming specific kinds of organizations by type. That wording is broad enough to reach an NGO's offices, a foundation's operations, or any other organized activity carrying on work through employees, regardless of whether that entity is organized to generate profit for owners or shareholders. Nothing in the article's language singles out for-profit businesses as the only kind of establishment it reaches. The word undertakings is broader still than establishments. It describes an activity rather than a place, which is why a project office, a field programme or a time-bound undertaking run out of borrowed premises is not outside the Title merely because it maintains no permanent establishment of its own.
Why the profit motive is expressly made irrelevant
By explicitly saying "whether for profit or not," the article does more than simply fail to exclude non-profits — it affirmatively addresses the question and answers it. If the drafters had intended this Title to apply only to profit-seeking businesses, this clause would have no purpose. Its presence signals that an organization's non-profit status was specifically anticipated as a possible basis for exclusion, and the article rejects that basis directly.
What an NGO employee can take from this article
Someone working for a foundation, charity, or NGO does not need to separately establish that their employer is a covered establishment before this Title's protections come into play — the article already answers that by name. Whether a particular right or obligation under this Title actually applies still depends on the specific provision in question, but the threshold objection that a non-profit is simply outside this Title's reach is not supported by Article 278's own wording.
Two boundaries worth keeping in view
The article's own words are the provisions of this Title. Its coverage clause speaks for that Title and not for the whole Code, and other parts of the Code carry coverage clauses of their own — so this article answers the non-profit objection where it is raised against this Title, rather than settling every coverage question that could arise elsewhere. The second boundary is about you rather than your employer. Coverage of the organisation is a different question from your own status: the Title reaches the establishment, but whether you are its employee rather than a volunteer, an independent contractor, or a consultant engaged for a particular project is decided by how the relationship actually works in practice, not by the label written on your engagement letter.