Find a Lawyer

Newspapers (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)‑‑

---‑ S. 17 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Emp loyment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. Os. 12(3) 15 (4) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Newspaper employee other than Editor in newspaper establishment having not less than ten employees‑A workman for purposes of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Press Manager‑Services terminated for alleged misconduct‑No enquiry held or defence opportunity provided‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, accepted.

Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed 1980 P L C 622 rel.

Muhammad Anis for Appellants.

Hameed M. Siddiqui for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th September, 19 2.

DECISION

The services of the respondent, who at the relevant time was working as Press Manager in the Morning News, were terminated vide order, gated 31st January, 1981 which reads as follows :

"Mr. Iqbal Hussain Bukhari,

Press Manager, Confidential

Morning News,

Karachi,

Dear Sir,

It is to inform you that the management of Morning News has decided to terminate your services with effect from 1st February, 1981 on payment of three months in lieu of notice period.

The management is compelled to terminate your services on account of grave malpractice committed by you which came to the knowledge of this management through tape‑recording of your underhand dealings in the conduct of your duties rendering great loss to the company of which the management has a convincing proof. This way you have been demanding cuts and commission from suppliers rendering financial loss to the company. You have also failed to properly supervise the work of your subordinates. It has all happened at a time when the paper is in the midst of struggle of survival.

Further the management reserves its rights to take suitable legal action against you for recovery of the losses suffered by the company as well as to take criminal action against you for misdeeds daring your tenure on completing investigations depart mental or otherwise in this regard.

Since the management has suffered financial loss which is being assessed, you will be paid your legal dues, if any after assessment of the loss and after adjusting the losses suffered by the manage ment. In case the amount of loss suffered by the management is in excess of your dues, the management will recover the same from you.

Please hand over complete charge to Mr. Abdul Haq, Supervisor.

Yours faithfully,

for National News Publication Ltd."

The respondent challenged the above order through a grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which by its decision, dated 21st December, 1981 allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with full back benefits and also allowed him special cost of Rs. 500. The learned Labour Court has based these findings on two grounds, firstly, that the order of termination of services of the respondent was passed by an incompetent authority and hence was invalid and secondly, that the said order was further invalid as it was passed without an enquiry or granting the respondent an opportunity of defending himself against the charges of misconduct levelled against him and refuting the same. Aggrieved by this decision the appellants have come up in appeal to this Tribunal,

2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Anis, who appeared for the appel lants, and Mr. Hameed Siddiqui, who represented the respondent. The main ground on which Mr. Muhammad Anis sought to assail the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court was that the respondent was not a workman for the purposes of I. R. O. and hence was not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. Elaborating his arguments in this behalf. Mr. Muhammad Anis first invited my attention to the nature of work of the respondent which, according to him, was mainly managerial and administrative in nature. 1t is not disputed that at the relevant time the respondent was working as Press Manager. According to the evidence given by the respondent before the learned Labour Court, as Press Manager. The respondent was in receipt of a basic salary of Rs. 800 p. m. plus Rs. 200 p. m. as Dearness Allowance, Rs. 120 House Rent Allowance, Rs. 325 as Additional Dearness Allowance and Rs. 150 as entertainment, overtime and conveyance allowance. The respondent has further admitted that it was his responsibility to print the paper in time. According to him he used to distribute the news for printing but in case 'of absence of any workman he used to work with his own hands. He has, however, not given details of any specific manual or clerical work performed by him. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Anis relied upon the orders, Exhs. R‑3 to R‑6, passed by the respondent calling for the explanation of certain workman and recording their confidential reports. Mr. Muhammad Anis also relied upon the admission of the respondent that he used to recommend persons for employment, recommend employees for annual increment, recommend transfer of employees from one section to another and also used to recommend action against a delinquent employee. On the basis of this evidence it was urged by Mr. Muhammad Anis that the respondent was performing administrative and managerial functions and was in receipt of emolument exceedings Rs. 800 p. m. and thus he does not fall within the definition of worker as given in the I. R. O. Even otherwise the respondent would not fall within the definition of worker as given in the I. R. O., as his services have been terminated and such termination was neither on account of an industrial dispute nor has it led to an industrial dispute. The fact, however; that the respondent does not fall within the definition of worker as given in the 1. R. O. is of no consequence as a grievance petition against termination of service is to be filed under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. The legal position in this b.‑half has been discussed in-detail by this Tribunal in the case reported as Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed(1980 P L C 622). In that case it has been clarified that an employee who wishes to challenge the termination of his services through grievance petition must establish that he comes within the definition of workman as given in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

3. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the respondent falls within the definition of workman as given in the Sind Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 1968. It is an admitted position that the respondent was "employed as Press Manager in the Morning News. The definition of "newspaper employee" as contained in the Newspapers Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1973, includes a whole‑time journalist including a Manager ; As such, the respondent, in his capacity as Press Manager, would fall within the definition of newspaper employee as given in the aforesaid act. The said Act provides for two modes of termination of services of a newspaper employees, One mode is provided in section 4 of the said Act. This mode is restricted to termination of services simplicitor, though for good cause, as explained by this Tribunal in the case of Mir Jawaid Rehman v. Syed Obaidullah Qadri, decided on 12th April, 1982. The instant case is not a case of termination of services simplicitor as the services of the respon dent have been terminated on allegations of grave misconduct. Consequently, the termination of services of the respondent cannot be said to have been made under section 4 of the aforesaid Act.

4. The other mode through which the services of newspaper employees can be terminated is the one provided in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the provisions whereof with certain exception have been made applicable to newspaper employees by section 17 of the Act. The said section provided that the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance, other than the provisions contained in Standing Order 2 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Standing Order 12, shall apply, subject to other provisions of the act, to every newspaper establishment employing not less than ten persons, as if such newspaper establishment were an industrial establishment and a newspaper employee were an employee within the meaning of the aforesaid Ordinance. The said section,. however, specifically excludes person employed as Editors of newspapers from‑its purview. It is, thus, clear that every newspaper employee other than Editor of the newspaper employed in a newspaper establishment which has not less than ten employees is deemed to be a .workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders and the provisions thereof, save those which have been specifically excepted, will apply to him. As already indicated, a workman aggrieved by the termination of his services can file a grievance petition in accordance with the provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with sect ion 25‑A, I. R . O. The respondent, who is deemed to be a workman for the purposes of the Standing Order, was thus entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition against his termination of services.

5. Moreover, his services could only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of clause (5) of Standing Order 12 read with Standing Order 15. Admittedly no domestic enquiry was held against the respon dent and the requirements of Standing Order 15 have not been fulfilled in the instant case. On that ground alone; therefore, the order of termina tion of the services of the respondent would not be maintainable.

6. It would also appear that order of termination of services of the respondent has not been passed by competent authority. No doubt the said order has been passed by the Chief Executive but it appears that . only the Chairman of the National Press Trust was competent to terminate the services of the. respondent. This was realised by the management and an attempt appears to have been made to cover this defect by delegation of authority of the Chairman National Press Trust to the Chief Executive. However, this delegate by the Chairman is of no effect, in the instant case, as the delegation was made on 10th February, 1981 while the services of the respondent were terminated some ten days earlier on 31st January, 1981.

7. On either view of the matter I find no merit in this appeal and would, accordingly, uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court. and dismiss this appeal.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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