' JUSTICE (RETD.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- This consolidated judgment shall decide the titled cases in respect of implementation of 7th Wage Board Award as identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases.
2. The petitioners filed separate petitions under section 13 subsection (4) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973) read with section 51 of IRO, 1969 (now section 62 IRO, 2002). The. Claim of the petitioners is that they are newspaper employees employed with the respondent-Establishment in various capacities as mentioned in each petition and that they are entitled to the payment of wages in accordance' with the decision of the 7th Wage Board Award which came into effect from 1-7-2000. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the coming into force of the 7th Wage Board Award, the respondent/newspaper establishment refused to implement the 7th Wage Board Award and pray for the necessary direction and action against the respondent in accordance with law. Each petitioner has also appended his statement of arrears of dues from 1-7-2000 to 31-3-2002.
3. In response to the petition, requisite notices were issued to the respondent/newspaper establishment for submission of written statement/ comments which were duly filed on 26-10- 2002. As the respondent had raised a number of objections in their comments, the petitioners filed replication in each case on 10-1-2003.
'Affidavit in evidence by each petitioner was filed wherein the claim as made in the petitions was reiterated. No counter-affidavit in rebuttal has been filed which affirms that the 7th Wage Board Award has not been implemented by the respondent.
4. Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate, Supreme Court on behalf of . The respondent/newspaper establishment and Mr. Faiz Muhammad Ghanghro, Advocate for the petitioners have been heard.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate reiterates the objections contained in the comments and objects to the implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award on the following grounds:-.
(a) it is contended that the 7th Wage Board Award, besides laying down the revised terms and conditions of service of the newspaper employees had also taken note of the financial difficulties faced by the newspaper employers. He submits that the rights that were conferred upon the newspaper employees to receive enhanced wages is conditional upon the fulfillment of the obligations of the Government towards the newspaper establishment as observed by the learned Chairman of the Wage. Board himself. The learned counsel has quoted in extensor an observation of the learned Chairman of the 7th Wage Board which is reproduced as under:- "Before parting, I may observe that the newspapers owners in Pakistan have also been adversely affected by the phenomenal price rise in the materials being used by them in the production of the Daily Newspapers. They state forcefully that the price of the Newsprint which is imported from abroad has almost doubled. They continue to submit that apart from the increase in the price on newsprint, they are obliged to pay custom duty etc. Between 30% to 32%. It has been brought to my notice due to high prices, some daily newspapers have permanently been closed. These newspapers are:--
(1) The Daily Hot Line, Lahore, (2) The Daily Azad, Lahore, (3) The Daily Rozana Akhbar, Lahore, (4)
The Daily Hakoomat, Lahore, (5) The Daily Media, Lahore, (6) The Daily Sadai, Lahore, (7) The Daily Akbar, Lahore, (8)The Daily National Express, Lahore, (9) The Daily Panah, Lahore, (10) The Daily Al- Suboh, Lahore, (11) The Daily Evening Press, Lahore, (12) The Daily Chattan, Lahore, (13) The Daily Frontier Post, Lahore, (14) The Daily Waqat, Lahore, (15) The Daily Tibat, Lahore.
' This is, indeed a sad state of affairs. In this scenario, I recommend/suggest to the present Government which, undoubtedly, benevolent and is always prepared to attend to the genuine demands of the people. It may be advisable to exempt the owners of the newspapers from the receipt of above said customs duty etc. At least for, a period of three to five (3 to 5) years so as .To enable them to overcome/control their financial crisis by consolidating their establishments. A complaint lodged before me by the small/region daily newspapers that they do not receive their due share from the official advertisements. Their grievance, of course, needs favourable consideration by the concerned quarters. It shall surely be appreciated by all, in case, the Provincial Governments are inclined to look after the interest of regional newspapers including the periodicals. Such Government advertisements should be given to all the newspapers whether small or big including the periodicals, of course keeping in view their circulations. The rates of Government advertisements may be doubled, to meet the ends of justice. Some concessions in the Utility Bills (Electricity, Telephones, Gas and Water) may also be considered by the concerned authorities in the best interest of Press which is the 4th pillar of the State. The Press, as a whole, has to be strengthened specially keeping in view the power devolution plan launched by the present Government for the welfare of the people at large. The owners throughout Pakistan have disclosed before me that they have been using old and outdated machines to bring out their newspapers.
Their plea is that they cannot afford to purchase the latest machinery for publication purposes. The plea appears to be based on truth. This being so, the Government should give interest free loans to the owners so as to enable them to up bring their business. I have visited almost all the Press Clubs in Pakistan. Their conditions are deplorable. They deserve to be given substantial financial aid every year on regular basis, "National Press Club Islamabad just situated in the heart of the Capital is still lying incomplete for the last more than five years for lack of funds. It is the crying need of the hour to complete this project at the earliest. There are about 22000 Journalists in the country. The majority of them does not own houses. Their housing problem may also be solved".
(b) That the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII) of 1973 under which the Wage Board Awards are made suffers from discrimination as it embraces both working Journalists and non-Journalists in its fold. It is argued that the Act (LVIII) of 1973 was preceded by the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960 which applied to the. Working journalists alone.
It is added that the non-Journalists employed in the newspaper industry should not be equated with working Journalists as this would amount to discrimination re-similar employees working in Industrial or Commercial establishments other than newspaper industry.
(c) That no right of appeal is provided against the Wage Board Award and that this militates against the principles of natural justice.
(d) That the claim made by the petitioners is not in accordance with the determination made in the 7th Wage Board Award.
(e) That the petitions under section 13(4) of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 read with section 51 IRO, 1969 are not competent.
(f) That the newspaper establishments have challenged the vires and legality of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII) of 1973 and the relevant Wage Board Award in constitutional petitions/I.C.A. And that proceedings before the implementation of the Tribunal be kept in abeyance till the final decision of the constitutional petitions.
(g) That the 7th Wage Board Award was not signed by all the members of Wage Board but was only signed by the Chairman alone. This, according to the learned counsel made the award arbitrary and illegal.
(h) No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondent-Establishment.
6. On the other hand Mr. Faiz Muhammad Ghanghro, Advocate for the petitioners has controverted the contentions raised by the respondent. It is submitted that the observation made by the learned Chairman, Wage Board and quoted in para.5 (supra) are merely recommendatory in nature. The suggestions made therein were not part of the 7th Wage Board Award but were merely made in the larger interest of the newspaper industry in passing. It is contended that suggestions such as giving due share of the official advertisement to small/regional daily Newspaper or that the Government should give interest free loans to the owners to purchase machinery or to improve the different Press Clubs in. Pakistan or that the housing problems of the Journalists need to be solved or that customs duty upon newsprint be reviewed were only general suggestions regarding the Government policy and had no nexus with the definite decision of the 7th Wage Board Award by virtue of which the wages were fixed with exactitude. It is further submitted that such general vague and inchoate suggestions could never the regarded as a precondition for implementation of the decision of the Wage Board Award which has attained the status of an award of the Full Bench of the NIRC by the force of Statute.
7. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the objections that the Act (LVIII) of 1973 was discriminatory as it applied to working Journalists as ill-founded. It is urged that the statement of objects and reasons of the relevant bill introduced in the National Assembly which culminated in the Act (LVIII) of 1973 clearly laid down the necessity of including non-Journalists and working Journalists within the ambit of the Act (LVIII) of 1973. The newspaper industry and all its employees were rationally regulated in a class of its own whether they were working Journalists or otherwise.
8. It is further contented on behalf of the petitioners that a decision of the Wage Board published under section 11 shall be deemed to be an award to Full Bench of the NIRC under section 12 of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 and as IRO applies to the newspaper establishments such an award shall be final and not liable to be challenged under section 22-E, IRO, 1969 (now section 53 IRO, 2002). Thus, the objection that as no right of appeal is given against the Wage Board Award, hence it violates principles of natural justice is misconceived.
9. It is further argued that the claim made by the petitioners is strictly in accordance with the 7th Wage Board Award. The respondent has not denied the status of the petitioners as employees or their respective category. The affidavit filed by the respective petitioners in this behalf has not been rebutted by a counter-affidavit and shall be deemed to have been admitted.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the application filed under section 13, subsection (4) of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 read with section 51 IRO, 1969 (now section 62, IRO, 2002) is fully competent as this is a statutory remedy available to the petitioners.
11. The learned counsel for .The petitioners has further submitted that the mere pendency of a constitutional petition challenging the vires of a Statute or any action taken thereunder shall not be a bar to the proceedings before. This Tribunal in the absence of any restraint order issued against the proceedings. He has finally argued that it is not the requirement of the law that the Wage Board Award be, signed by all the members of the Board. He added that the employer and employee members of the Board act in a consultative capacity only and that the award is signed by the Chairman alone. He has also referred to the previous awards which were signed by the Chairman alone and which awards have been implemented by the large without objection by the newspaper establishments.
12. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
13. In order to effectively analyze the respective contention raised by the parties, it is important to examine the 7th Wage Board Award in some measure.
14. The 7th Wage Board Award was constituted vide Notification No,I-19-99-Lab-II, dated 19-6-2000 and Notification No,Lab-II-I(19)/99, dated 8-7-2000. This Wage Board comprised of 5 employer members, 5 employee members with Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan, former Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan as its Chairman. The Wage Board held various meetings. The representatives of the employees submitted a memorandum for grant of interim relief. In order to give opportunity of hearing to all the owners of 218 newspaper in the country being published at the time, notices were issued to all the newspaper owners. In response to the notices, only few newspaper owners associated with the proceedings of the Wage Board while the other abstained despite notice. A perusal of the 7th Wage Board Award shows that several meetings took place in this behalf. The learned Chairman of the Board undertook in depth investigative exercise in order to determine the interim relief to be granted to the Workers. It was at this stage that the learned Chairman of the Wage Board made the observation which is relied upon by the respondent-establishment and which is contained in para.5 (supra):--- "The true impact of the grant of interim relief and the observations/recommendations made by the Chairman, Wage.Board is determined by the Award itself. Paras.20 and 21 thereof are reproduced as under:-- "20. It is evident that interim order consists of two parts. The first part showed that relief was given to the employees in the following terms:--
(a) Grade Special and above Rs,2,000 per month
(b) Grade Ito IV Rs,1,600 per month
(c) Grade V to VIII Rs,1,100 per month
21. The second part related to the recommendations/suggestions for removal of difficulties of the owners of the newspapers. Obviously, the first part had to be implemented by the learned implementation Tribunal for the newspaper employees. The second part might be considered by the competent Government authority. In my view, the interim order is clear. It had no doubt whatsoever."
15. A conjoint reading of the above quoted paras. Of the award would leave no manner of doubt that while the portion relating to the grant of interim relief was clear and unambiguous having a binding effect the second portion consisted of recommendations only. In terms of the Award, the first part had to be implemented by the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees; the second part regarding recommendations was to be considered by the competent Government authority in its discretion.
16. A further perusal of the 7th Wage Board Award makes it manifest that in order to fix the rates of wages several factors such as rise in the cost of living, the prevent rates of wages of comparable employment and other cognate factors were considered. Extensive evidence was recorded at Karachi, Hyderabad, Quetta, Lahore, Islamabad/Rawalpindi and Peshawar where most of the Metropolitan or Regional newspaper establishments were in operation. The Board was also assisted by eminent economists of the country. The wage structure was fixed after taking into consideration the actual increase in cost of living. This includes decline in the purchasing power of money, progressive rates of inflation increase in the prices of essential items of daily use, rise in the house rents, increase in cost of urban transport, rise in the cost of electricity, gas and other utilities and the rise in cost of education.
17. It has been noted in the Award that employers failed to assist the Wage Board by not providing the indices of increase in productivity. The higher productivity, the higher will be its profits and the capacity to pay. The productivity growth rates can only be determined by computing the total factor productivity i,e, labour productivity and capital productivity. The profit and loss accounts, details in put and out put structure and balance sheets were not produced by the newspaper establishments before the Wage Board. Resultantly the Wage Board announced its Award based upon the evidence recorded before it.
18. In the light of this in-depth analysis of the 7th Wage Board the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Establishment that the suggestions/recommendations contained in para.17 of the 7th Wage Board Award and as reproduced in para.5 of the judgment is a precondition for implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award is totally falacious and is repelled.
Neither such an intention is discernible from the Award nor is indeed successfully demonstrated before this Tribunal. The respondent-Establishment had full opportunity before the learned Wage Board to disclose the total productivity factor which they failed to do. No attempt was made,' if one could be made even before the Implementation Tribunal in this behalf. Thus, the suggestion such as giving due share of the official advertisement to small/regional daily Newspaper or that the Government should give interest free loans to the owners to purchase machinery or to improve the different Press Clubs in Pakistan or that the housing problems of the Journalists need to be solved or that customs duty upon newsprint be reviewed were only general suggestions in passing regarding the Government policy and was not a conditionality for the implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award by virtue of which the wages were fixed with exactitude. This is particularly so as under law, the 7th Wage Board Award has attained the status of an Award of the Full Bench of the NIRC by the force of Statute
19. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII) of 1973 was liable to be struck clown on the ground of discrimination as it embraces both working Journalists and non-Journalists cannot be raised before this Tribunal. In any event this argument overlooks certain established legal aspects. The Government of Pakistan had in the first instance set up the Pakistan Press Commission with terms of reference "to examine and make recommendations on the rates of pay and working conditions of the Journalists". To give recognition to the recommendations of the Pakistan Press Commission, the Government of Pakistan initially promulgated Working Journalists (Conditions of Service)
Ordinance XVI of 1960. In accordance with the original terms of reference, the said Ordinance provided for wage structure etc. For working Journalists alone. For the period that the Ordinance XVI of 1960 was in force, it was felt that the work performed by even the non-Journalists employees of a newspaper establishment entailed basic ingredients of Journalistic work and that it would be rational to identify all the employees engaged on a newspaper establishment into a separate class of its own as all the employees of the newspaper establishments faced similar exigencies and hazards of occupation. In order to give effect to this reasonable classification the statement of objects and reasons of the relevant bill was introduced in the National Assembly on August 1, 1973.
The bill is reproduced as under:-- "The bill is calculated to repeal and, with certain amendments, reenact the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960, so as to provide for the following matters, among others:--
(a) Constitution of a Wage Board at the national level, for fixing rates of wages in respect of Journalist as well as non-Journalist newspaper employees;
(b) effective implementation of the decision of the Wage Board;
(c) application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), to all newspaper employees;
(d) application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 W.P. Ordinance (No,VI of 1968) to every newspaper establishment wherein ten or more newspaper employees are employed; and
(e) better welfare measures about security of service, hours of work, leave and medical care."
(the bill is published in Gazette of Pakistan Extra Part-III, Aug. 1, 1973 page 1232).
20. It was thus, that the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service), Act (LVIII) of 1973 was promulgated. The object of the Act is to constitute a Wage Board for fixing wage rates for Journalists as well as non-Journalists newspaper employees, provide for effective implementation of the decision of the Wage Board and provide application of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 (now 2002) and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order)
Ordinance, 1968.
21. The submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is discriminatory to include Journalists and non-Journalists in the ambit of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 does not appear to be tenable for more than one reasons. Firstly the classification of a category comprising of both working Journalists and non-Journalists and terming and including them in a composite category of newspaper employees is a just and rational classification Made by the Statute i,e, the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service), Act (LVIII) of 1973 itself. It is not the case of the respondent that the law itself had made no classification but has left the selection to an outside agency without laying down any guidelines thus enabling. The authority to pick and choose arbitrarily. Had this been the case, there could be some substance in' the submission of the respondent as was the case in Waris Mian v.' State PLD 1957 (Pak.)
157. In the instant case however, the classification of all newspaper employees as a category is based on an expedient and rational basis by the Statute itself. The allegation of discrimination in such circumstances remains unsubstantiated.
' It also needs no gainsaying that law leans in favour of upholding legislative instrument rather than destroying them particularly when there is nothing to persuade to hold that such law is in derogation of any provision of the Constitution or in violation of principles of natural justice.
22. The next contention raised by the learned counsel, for the respondent is that there is no right of appeal against the Wage Board Award in the Act (LVIII) of 1973 and that this militates against the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. Reliance has been placed upon Secretary M/o Defence v. The General Public PLD 1989 SC 6 wherein the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court held as under "the Federal Shariat Court in its impugned judgment has also held that the right of appeal was recognized by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) as well as by the Khulfa- e-Rashideen and discussed this question -in great detail. Nothing has been shown to us- in refutation of the plea, thus, that barring the right of appeal does not offend against the injunction of Islam cannot be accepted".
23. It is further submitted that denial of right of appeal is contrary to the norms of justice as also violative of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. And others v. Banking Tribunal Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah.
672. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel on this score, it is expedient to recapitulate the salient features of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
Act (LVIII) of 1973. The Wage Board is constituted under section 9(a) (ibid) wherein it is provided that the Federal Government may constitute a Wage Board for fixing rates of wages in respect of newspaper employees. Section 9(2) provides that the Board shall consist of a Chairman and as many members to advise the Chairman as may be appointed by the Federal Government under section 10(3); the decision of the Board fixing rates of wages shall be communicated as soon as practicable to the Federal Government. Section 11 provides that the decision of the Board shall be published by the Federal Government in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 12 provides that the decision of the Wage Board published under section 11 shall be deemed to be an Award of the full bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission. The Implementation Tribunal is constituted under section 12(A) (ibid) and exercises the powers as mentioned under section 13 (ibid). Firstly the objection regarding the wires of the Act of 1973 on whatever count cannot be agitated before this Tribunal whose primary Statutory function is to implement the relevant Wage Board Award. It shall not be within the Province of this Tribunal to go behind the Wage Board Award.
Secondly the Constitution and nature of the Wage Board under the Act (LVIII) of 1973 is unique and specific in nature. According to section 9(2) (ibid) the Wage Board shall consist of Chairman appointed by the Federal Government...., and as many members to advise the Chairman as may be appointed by the Federal Government so, however, that one-half of the members shall be persons representing the newspaper employees and the other half the employers in relations to newspaper establishments. The nature and concept of the members of the Board is contemplated as being representative of the newspaper employees and newspaper employees as a whole whose function it is only to advise the Chairman. The Wage Board under the Act (LVIII) of 1973 is not a body corporate with a common seal or succession. In fact the Board is nothing but a consultative body which fixes the rates of wages after receiving advise in terms of section 10(1) of the Act:--- "This being the case, it cannot be said that the Wage Board intrinsically is either an adjudicative, administrative or quasi administrative authority."
24. The nature of the Award of the Wage Board also needs elaboration. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Faiz Muhammad Ghanghro, learned counsel for the petitioner, a decision of the Wage Board published under section 11 shall be deemed to be an award of the full bench of the Commission as provided by section 12 of the Act (LVIII) of 1973.. By same section, all the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance including the provisions of section 51 and 55, IRO, 1969 (as they correspond to the provisions of IRO, 2002) shall apply to the decision of the Wage Board. At this juncture it would be profitable to refer to section 22-B, IRO, 1969 (corresponding to section 52 IRO, 2002). This provision deals with appeals provided against an Award or decision or a sentence etc. Passed by a bench other than a full bench of the NIRC. It is while hearing such an appeal that the full bench of NIRC passing a final Appellate order, the finality of which is vouch-safed by section 53 IRO, 2002. By equating the Award of the Wage Board with that passed by the Full Bench of the NIRC, the provisions of IRO being squarely applicable to the Act (LVIII) of 1973, the intendment of law by legislation by reference would be to clothe the Award of the Wage Board with finality as a final appellate decision.
25. In view' of this status of the Wage Board Award, it would be futile to urge that any further right of appeal should have been provided as that would be in derogation of the specific provisions of IRO, 2002 which applies of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 through legislation by incorporation.
' The objection of, the learned counsel for the respondent is rejected.
26. The next objection made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the claim made by the petitioners is not in accordance with the 7th Wage Board Award. This contention cannot bear scrutiny. Firstly the status of the petitioner as whole time employees of the respondent is not controverted either in the comments filed by the respondent or at any subsequent is not controverted either in the comments filed by the respondent or at any subsequent stage. Each petitioner has appended statement of his dues calculated in accordance with the 7th Wage Board Award along with his petition although the said statement relates to the period 1-7-2000 to 31-3- 2002. All the petitioners have also submitted duly sworn affidavits in support of their claim. The respondent/newspaper established despite having obtained an opportunity to file their counter- affidavit have failed in doing the needful which shows that the claim of the petitioners stand admitted by the respondent-Establishment. This Tribunal is further fortified in its view by the ratio laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in case title Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees v. Matri Publication Ltd. 2001 PLC 662 wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold that where the decision of the Wage Board was published in the notification under section 11, the same was binding on all the employers in relation to newspaper establishments and every newspaper employee was entitled to the wages, in no case, has than the wages fixed by the decision. Their Lordships have further held that "since money due from the employers had been determined in the Award/decision of the Wage Board therefore, no further determination was required and the Tribunal specially constituted to implement the decision of the Wage Board was competent to issue a direction for the recovery of the money". It was further held that the decision of the Wage Board Award duly notified was binding on the employers and was within the competence and jurisdiction of the Tribunal to implement the same.
' In this view of the matter the contention raised on behalf of the respondent is repelled.
27. The next objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitions under section 13(4) of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 read with section 51, IRO, 1969 are not competent.
28. This objection is also devoid of force. As held in the case of Matri Publication Ltd. 2001 PLC 662 the cumulative effect of sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 12-A and 13 of the Act, 1973 is to provide the constitution of a Wage Board for fixing of rates of wages in respect of newspaper employees in accordance with law and to provide effective implementation of decision of Wage Board by the Implementation Tribunal. The rule laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above quoted judgment is reproduced as under:- "The Federal Government constituted a Tribunal to implement the decision of the Board which under subsection (4) of section 13 of the Act could exercise the same powers as that of Labour Court to issue directions under section 51(1) of the Ordinance (IRO), 1969, now section 62 (IRO), 2002 which provides that any money due from employer under a Settlement or Award or decision of the arbitrary be recovered, upon the application of the person entitled to the money by the Labour Court or the Tribunal as arrear of the land revenue. It may be noted that the legislature in its wisdom has only conferred the powers on the Implementation Tribunal under section 51(1) of the Ordinance which the Labour Court could exercise for the recovery of the money due from an employer under a Settlement or Award and it has specifically excluded the subsection (2) of section 51 of the IRO, 1969 whereby amount was to be determined and recovered."
29. It is thus, manifest that the Implementation Tribunal is obligated under law to issue a direction to implement and recover the arrears of the wages as determined by the Wage Board Award itself and determination of the dues under section 51(2), IRO, 1969 was not a condition precedent before directing the recovery as arrear of land revenue.
30. It may also be emphasized that a direction as contemplated of section 13(4) of the Act of 1973 is not derogative of any action which might be initiated by this Tribunal exercising powers suo Motu under section 13 subsection (6) (ibid).
31. This objection is thus rejected.
32. The ultimate objection of the respondent/newspaper establishment that as several newspaper establishments have challenged the vires of Act (LVIII) of 1973 and the relevant Wage Board Award in Constitutional petitions/I.C.A., the proceedings before this Tribunal be kept in abeyance is not tenable in law. It is trite law that pendency of a Constitutional Petition or an I.C.A. Arising therefrom, challenging the vires of a legislation or an order, decision or Award under it would not ipso facto effect the pendency of other proceedings. Reliance is placed upon Messrs Cowas Jee v. Director Sindh Employees Social Security Institution 2000 PLC (Labour) 26.
33. There is no merit in this objection which is dismissed.
34. The last and final objection of the respondent-Establishment is that the 7th Wage Board Award was not signed by all the members of the Wage Board but was only signed by the Chairman alone and that this had made the Award arbitrary and illegal. This objection is not sustainable. Under section 9, subsection (2) of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 the members of the Wage Board are appointed to advise the Chairman of the Board. It is nowhere spelt out from the Act that the Award was required to be signed by the Chairman and the members of the Board. That the Award requires the signatures at least of the majority of the members is also not the requirement of the statute. This Tribunal has been referred to the previous Awards made by the Wage Board which have been shown to be signed by the Chairman alone. All the said Awards have been implemented by the newspaper establishments by and large without objection.
35. The objection being without force is rejected.
36. The upshot of the above discussion is that all the legal objections raised by the respondent newspaper establishment which are to justify the non-implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award are found to be devoid of force and pose no impediment to the effective implementation of the 7th Wage Board Award in respect of all the petitioners as claimed by them which claims stands unrequited on the record. It is also not the case of the respondent newspaper establishment that the 7th Wage Board Award has been implemented in part or in whole in respect of any of the petitioners. This being the case the respondent newspaper establishment is directed under section 13, subsection (4) of the Act (LVIII) of 1973 read with section 51(1), IRO, 1969 (now section 62(1), IRO, 2002) to pay all the arrears of wages to the petitioners with effect from 1-7-2000, the date of effectiveness of the 7th Wage Board Award upto 31-3-2002 as per the statements appended by each petitioner with his petition and from 1-4-2002 uptill 31-1-2007 in accordance with the rates admissible under the 7th Wage Board Award for each petitioner as calculated by the Inspector of this Tribunal. The entire arrears shall be paid to the respective petitioners within one month of the receipt of the notice from this Tribunal with compliance report to the Registrar of the Tribunal. If the recovery is not made within the prescribed time, the recovery shall be made as arrears of land revenue and paid to the respective petitioners. It is further directed that the wages shall be paid according to the 7th Wage Board Award to the petitioners in future till their employment.