Find a Lawyer

Appeal, No. KAR.‑165‑of 1969, heard on 6th .June 1969.

---S.16 read with Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance (XVI of 1960), S. 3‑A‑Order passed by Industrial Court under S. 3‑A, Working Journalists (Conditions of. Service) Ordinance, 1960‑Final and cannot be challenged by an appeal under S. 16, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1958.

The order passed by the Industrial Court, on an application made by the Working Journalist, is final. Section 3 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960 makes the Industrial Ordinance 1959, applicable Disputes subject to the other provisions of the Ordinance. In other words, if under section 3‑A(d), the Industrial Court makes an order, the same cannot be .challenged' in an appeal ,under section 16 of the West Pakistan: Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968.

----S. 3‑A‑Application to Industrial Court ‑--Not maintainable if applicant not a Working Journalist‑Industrial Court having come to conclusion that applicant was not a work ing journalist, should not proceed further to give decision on merits of case.

A. Majeed for Appellant.

Masood Mirza for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 6th June 1969.

This is an appeal against an order of the First West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi, dated 4th April 1969. The impugned order was passed on an application under section 3 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service), Ordinance, 1960, as amended by the (West Pakistan Amendment Ordinance, 1967) (West Pakistan Ordinance No. VII of 967), for Re‑instatement with full back wages. The facts giving rise to the appeal breifly put are these.

2. The appellant was employed, as Deputy General Manager, Daily Anjam, on 27th December 1965.He was promoted, later on, as General Manager. He was, however, suspended from service, on 4th April 1967, on the ground of misappropriation of certain amount of money. On 10th May 1967, the appellant was charge‑sheeted on a number of grounds, which need not be mentioned here. Mr. Aziz Ahmad, Chairman of the National Press Trust, appointed one Mian Tasdique Hussain, as the Enquiry Officer to go into the charges. The appellant gave a detailed reply to the charges. He was given full opportunity to produce his own witnesses and to cross‑examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution. The appellant was found guilty and he was dismissed from service by Mr. Aziz Ahmad on 10th December 1967. It may be mentioned here that the appellant had submitted his resignation after the close of the enquiry, but it was not accepted by the Chairman of the National Press Trust who dismissed him from service, as already mentioned.

3. Mr. Masood Mirza, the learned representative for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection, namely, that the appeal is not maintainable. There is much force in this contention. Under section 3 of‑ the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, has been made applicable, "subject to the other provisions of this Ordinance". This Ordinance has a reference to the Working Journalists Ordinance. The Working Journalists Ordinance was amended in 1967, and a new section, known as Revised Procedure section' 3‑A had been added. It is divided into five clauses, i.e. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Under this section a procedure is prescribed whereby a Working Journalist can vindicate his grievances. Where an employer fails to give a decision in respect of the grievance raised by the Working Journalist, he can approach the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court on receipt of the complaint and after giving notice to the employer concerned could decide the matter in such summary way as it deemed proper. Under clause (d) of section 3‑A, the order passed by the Industrial Court, on an application made to it by the Working Journalist, shall be final. It would be useful to reproduce section 3‑A (d), in order to dispose of the contention of the learned Representative of the respondent, which runs as under :‑

"in deciding the matter, the Court may pass such orders, including orders regarding costs, as it may deem just and proper and it may, in appropriate cases, require, by such order, the re‑instatement of the complainant thereof and such order shall be final ;"

A plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the order passed by the Industrial Court, on an application made by then Working Journalist, is final. Section 3 of the Ordinance makes the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, "959, ' applicable subject to the other provisions of the Ordinance. In other words, if under section 3‑A (d), the Industrial Court make an order, the same cannot be challenged in an appeal render, section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance,) 1968.

5. The Legislature has, for a very good reason, made the order, passed on an application made under section 3‑A of the Ordinance, final, the reason being that where a Working Journalist has a grievance against his employer and in case the Court gives an order in favour of the Journalist, he may be able to enjoy the fruit of that order without fear of the other side going in appeal. On the other hand, if the order is against the Journalist, he can agitate the matter through his Trade Union. Section 3‑A(d) of the Ordinance is more against the employer than against a Working Journalist. The employer, if the order goes against him, cannot challenge it, while the Journalist, if the order is against him, can agitate his grievance as an industrial dispute through the Union or the Five Elected Representatives, as the case may be. I would hold that the order passed under section 3‑A of the Ordinance, by the Industrial Court, is a final order, which cannot be challenged by an appeal under section 16 of the West Pakistan‑ Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968.

6. It was also urged by Mr. Masood Mirza that even if the appeal was maintainable, the appellant being not a Working Journalist, no application under section 3‑A of the Ordinance could be filed. As I have already held that no appeal is maintainable, the question of deciding the point as to whether the appellant was a Working Journalist, does not arise. The Industrial Court has held that the appellant was not a Working Journalist. Mr. A. Majeed, the learned Representative for the appellant, however, submitted that the learned Industrial Court having held that the appellant was not a Working Journalist, should not have given any finding on the merit of the case. This, it is submitted, has prejudiced the appellant to some extent . The appellant was not fully concentrating his attention to the merit of the case, as he thought that the Court will first determine the question of the maintainability of the application. It is true, the learned Industrial Court having come to the conclusion that the appellant was not a Working Journalist, it should not have further proceeded, in the circumstances of the present case, to give its decision on the merits of the case.

With these observations, I would dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is not maintainable.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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