Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑400 of 1983, decided on 26th Septem ber, 1983.

‑‑‑Ss. 2 (d), 17 & 18‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court in redressing grievance of newspaper employees‑Employee (journalist) falling within definition of S. 2 (d)‑Within purview of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Entitled to enforcement of his right under said Ordinance by virtue of S. 17‑Exclusion of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by virtue of S. 18, held, does not exclude application of provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Orders of Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside order of dismissal of such newspaper employee awarding re‑instatement with back benefits‑ Upheld by High Court and interference refused in constitutional jurisdiction‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9.

Ainuddin Khan for Petitioners.

M.L. Shahani for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th September, 1983,

This petition is directed against the orders, dated 29th November, 1982 and 12th November, 1983 passed by the learned Vth Sind Labour Court and the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi, respectively in Application No. 6/1981 and Appeal No. KAR‑615 of 1982, respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent No. 3 was employed as a Sub Editor in the year 1973. He was promoted as a Senior Sub‑Editor w.e.f. 1st February, 1976 in Grade‑II in terms of the Second Wage Commission Award and thereafter w.e.f. 1st July, 1979 he was allowed to work as a Manager. After that w.e.f. 16th January, 1980 he was promoted as an Officer‑on‑Special Duty in Grade‑I. It seems that respondent No. 3's services were dispensed with by an order, dated 30th September, 1980. Respondent No. 3 being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid Application No. 6/1981 before the learned Vth Sind Labour Court at Karachi, which was allowed by the aforesaid order, dated 28th November 1982 and respondent No. .3 was ordered to be re‑instated with full back benefits. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid Appeal No. KAR 615/1982, which was dismissed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal by its aforesaid order, dated 2nd April, 1983 subject to the modification that the back benefits were reduced to the extent of 60 per cent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above two impugned orders have filed the above petition.

2. (a) In support of the above petition, Mr. Ainuddin, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent No. 3 was not a workman within the purview of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance and therefore, his application could not have been entertained by the Vth Sind Labour Court, hence the order passed by it is without jurisdiction and that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal committed error of law, which maintained the order of the learned Vth Sind Labour Court.

(b) On the other hand Mr. Shahani, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 has contended that respondent No. 3 is a newspaper employee within the definition given in section 2 (d) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that because of section D of the Act, the provisions of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance have been made applicable to the newspapers employees except pares. 1 and 2 of the Standing Order 12 and also in case of an editor.

3. We have gorse through the impugned orders and have noticed that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal has dealt with the point in issue in detail. We are inclined to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Appellate Tribunal that respondent No. 3 is a news paper employee within the definition given in section 2 (d) of the Act, and because of section 17 of the Act, the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance have been made applicable to the newspapers employees. The reference to section 18 of the Act, which excludes the application of I.R.O. 1969 to the newspapers employees by Mr. Ainuddin the learned counsel for the petitioner is out of context, as the petitioner had sought the enforcement of the relevant provisions of the West Pakistan Standing Order) Ordinance and not of the pro visions of the I.R.O.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not rind any merits in the above petition, and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

A.E Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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