' JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- This single judgment shall decide all the above cited cases as identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under section 13 subsection (4) of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII), 1973 read with section 51 IRO 1969 for implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award. The respective petitioners are employed with the respondent newspaper establishment in the various capacities as mentioned in each petition. The petitioners have also appended a statement of accounts showing arrears of salary with effect from 1-7-2000 to 30-9-2002.
3. In response to the notices issued in this behalf, the respondent newspaper establishment put in appearance. Despite repeated opportunities obtained by respondent to file comments to the petitions, the respondent failed to furnish the same. On account of this persistent default the defence of the respondent was closed vide order, dated 25-4-2006.
4., Instead of meeting the case of the petitioners on merits of law and facts, the .Emphasis of the respondent-establishment has been, time an again to refer to the pendency of constitutional petitions wherein the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII), 1973 and the awards made thereunder have been challenged with a repeated request to adjourn the -proceedings before this Tribunal on that score. The case was taken up on 25-1-2007 at Camp Office, Karachi when the respondent-establishment was represented by Mr. Muhammad Humayun, learned counsel for the respondent along with Mr. Khurshid Aizid, Manager (Human Resource). Even on this occasion the brunt of argument was that as the matter was pending in the High Court, the matter of implementation may be kept in abeyance. No other point was urged.
5. The Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII), 1973 was promulgated with the specific object and purpose of constituting a Wage Board for fixing the rates of wages of newspaper employees. The Wage Board(s) have been regularly constituted by the Federal Government. The various Wage Boards gave their decisions whereby rates of wages and wage structure for newspaper employees have been fixed. The decision of the Wage Board is published by the Federal Government in the official gazette under section 11(ibid). The decision of the Board so published comes into operation on such date as may be specified and where no date is so specified, from the date of its publication. Under section 12 of the Act of 1973, the decision of the Board published under section 11 shall be deemed to be an Award of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Uptill now as many as seven Wage Board awards have been made and published in the official gazette.
6. Section 12-A provides for the constitution of Implementation Tribunal to implement the decision of the Wage Board as published. The powers of the Implementation Tribunal as specified in section 13 (ibid). Wage Board Award being equivalent to the Award of the Full Bench of the NIRC, the Implementation Tribunal under the Newspaper Employees (Condition of 'Service) Act (LVIII), 1973 as also the Labour Court constituted under the. Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (now 2002) are fully empowered to recover the arrears of wages as arrear of land revenue.
7. As already stated the claim of the petitioners dates back to their applications filed on 20th October, 2002. These applications are for implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award which became effective from 1-7-2000. The claim of the petitioners on merits has not been controverted.
The respondent has failed to implement the 7th Wage Board Award only upon their contention that they have challenged the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII), 1973 along with Wage Board Award issued thereunder in constitutional petitions. The respondent-establishment concedes that no restraint order has been issued against the proceedings before this Tribunal in any of the said constitutional petitions.
8. It also needs no gainsaying that under section 15 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII), 1973, decision of the Wage Board shall be binding on all employees in relation to newspaper establishment and every newspaper employee shall be entitled to be paid wages at a rate which shall in no case be less than the rate of wages fixed by the Board.
9. The only reason advanced by the respondent newspaper establishment for not implementing the 7th Wage Board Award and not paying the petitioners their salaries in accordance with 7th Wage Board Award was the conception that as they have filed constitutional petitions against the act as well as the Wage Board award, they were not liable to implement the relevant Wage Board Award. This submission, to say the least has no merit whatsoever. Mere pendency of a case challenging the vires of any law is no excuse not to abide by such law. Needless to add that the implementation of the existing law (Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII), 1973 and the 7th Wage Board Award shall be subject to the final decision of the constitutional petition(s). This is even moreso as admittedly there is no stay order in operation in the constitutional petitions. Reliance is placed upon the rule laid down in the case of Messrs Cowas Jee & Sons v. Director Sindh Employees Social Security Institution 2000 PLC (Labour) 26.
10. As observed earlier section 12-A of Act (LVIII), 1973 clearly spells out the purpose of the constitution of the Implementation Tribunal as implementation of the decision of the Wage Board constituted under the Act. A conjoint reading of sections 9(1), 10, 11, 12, 12-A and 13 would make it manifest that these provisions are enacted for fixing rates of wages of newspaper employees and to provide effective implementation of decision of Wage Board by the Implementation Tribunal.
Reliance is placed upon the rule laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees v. Matri Publication Ltd. 2001 PLC (Labour) 662.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the mere pendency of the constitutional petitions shall pose no impediment for the Implementation Tribunal to effectively implement the 7th Wage Board Award in respect of the petitioners. The statement of arrears appended by each petitioners with his petition from 1-7-2000 to 30-9-2002 stand unrebutted on the record as the respondent has not challenged the same. The Inspector of the Tribunal shall calculate the amount of arrears of the petitioners with effect from 1-10-2002 uptill 31-1-2007 and shall thereafter issue notice to the respondent-newspaper establishment for payment of the said arrears to the petitioners within one month of the receipt of the notice with the report of compliance to the Registrar of this Tribunal.
This payment however shall be subject to the final decision of the constitutional petitions referred to by the respondent.