SHAHID MEHMOOD KHOKHAR, CHAIRMAN. Case was lastly fixed on 11/01/2024 when Mr. Rana Ijaz Ahmed Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner, whereas none appeared on behalf of respondent management. Instant petition was filed by the petitioner on 22/05/2019 with the contention that he was appointed in the month of February 1997 as helper in Daily, The News, Lahore by Respondent No.1 and was terminated from service on 01/09/2007 and was reemployed on 12/07/2012 as Fax Operator in Daily Jang, Lahore. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner was re-employed in the year 2012 by respondent organization through Respondent No. 2, which is subsidiary company of Respondent No. 1 and working under the control of Respondent No. 1 but the services were to be rendered in favour of Respondent No. 1 in its premises. Petitioner was appointed on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 9500/- per month and his last pay drawn was Rs. 15000/- per month excluding allowances and throughout this period he served the Respondent No. 1 as Fax Operator and he was detailed at night duty throughout his service. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his services were terminated on 13/12/2018 without issuing any show-cause notice and thus he was constraint to file instant petition on 22/05/2019 for recovery of his salary and allowances, as according to him despite promulgated of 7th Wage Board Award, he was denied the benefits accrued under 7th Wage Board Award thus, he had claimed recovery of his salary and allowances as per 7" Wage Board Award. In support of his contention petitioner had filed his service card issued by Respondent No. 1, copy of contract letter dated 14/07/2012, copy of employee handbook issued by Respondent No. 2 on behalf of Respondent No. 1 copy of certificates dated 25/01/2007, 26/10/1999 and 05/09/2000, issued by Respondent No.1, The News International and copy of termination letter dated 13/12/2018 issued by Respondent No. 2. Respondents were issued notices but none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2 till date, whereas, Respondent No. 1 filed its reply by taking preliminary objections by denying any relationship of newspaper employer and newspaper employee, jurisdiction of Tribunal qua services of the petitioner as well as denial of having any cause of action against Respondent No. 1. Out of the divergent pleadings, following issues were framed :- 1) Whether this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the instant application as the petitioner is not employee of the respondent establishment? (OPR)
2) Whether the petitioner does not come within the definition of the newspaper employee as defined under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973? (OPR)
3) Whether the petitioner was employee of third party and he had no nexus with to respondent establishment? (OPR)
4) Whether application of the petitioner is barred by time? (OPR), 5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover arrears accruing due to difference between the wages actually paid and due under the 7th Wage Board Award, if so, to what amount? (OPA)
6) Relief.
2. Thereafter, evidence of parties was recorded. Petitioner in support of his contentions submitted documents which were exhibited as affidavit in evidence A/1 contract letter mark-A certificated dated 25/01/2007 Ex-A/3, certificate dated 26/10/1999 Ex-A/4, certificate dated 05/09/2000 Ex-A/5, contract letter dated 01/03/2007 (03-pages) Ex-A/6, contract letter dated 29/09/2014 Mark-B, Card valid upto 30/06/2019 Ex-A/7, Card valid upto 31/05/2006 Ex-A/8, card valid upto 31/12/2004 Ex-A/9, card valid upto 31/12/2002 Ex-A/10, card valid upto 30/06/2015 Mark-C. Petitioner was cross- examined by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 in which he categorically stated as under:- "It is incorrect to suggest that I am employee of Independent Newspaper Services. Voluntarily stated that I am employee of Jang. It is correct that Independent Newspaper Services appointed me on 14/07/2012 but I am employee of Jang. Voluntarily stated that Independent Newspaper Services is a dummy organization. It is correct that I do not have any document to show that Independent Newspaper Services is a dummy organization. It is correct that I have not appended any pay slip with my petition. It is correct that Independent Newspaper services terminated my service on 13/12/2018. It is correct that I accepted pay order along with termination letter on 13/12/2018. It is also correct that I accepted last payment of Rs. 18000/-. Jang never paid anything accept monthly salary. It is incorrect to suggest that Jang terminated my service in 2012 rather respondent establishment appointed me in 2012. It is incorrect to suggest that Independent Newspaper Services appointed me on 14/07/2012. It is correct that I did not claim any wages under the 7th Wage Board Award in writing w.e.f. 14/07/2012 to December, 2019. Voluntarily stated I verbally request the respondent establishment. It is correct that I accepted the contract letter dated 29/09/2014 without any duress or pressure.. Signatures on the contract letter are mine. It is incorrect to suggest that Independent Newspaper Services issued me appointment letter.
Voluntarily stated the appointment letters were issued by Jang."
3. Whereas, petitioner has heavily relied upon bank statement of his account which is maintained in HBL, Davis Road Branch, Lahore, which clearly reflects transfer of salary by the respondent in his account and on number of occasion salary was credited in his account from the account of Jang, Lahore from same Branch, which was not denied by the respondent establishment, either in its written reply or in its written arguments. Whereas respondent has filed written reply to the petition and on 06/11/2020 learned counsel for the respondent stated at the bar that reply filed by respondent may be treated as examination in chief and matter was adjourned for 07/01/2021. On 07/01/2021 Mr. Mian Mahmood Ali appeared as RW in which he Submitted his affidavit-in-evidence R/1, general power of attorney mark-A/R, copy of special power of attorney mark-B/R and copy of general power of attorney mark-C/R and a suggestion put up by learned counsel for petitioner, admitted as under:- "1 am regular employee of Jang Group. It is not in my knowledge that MIS. INS, INCL and VASC provides manpower on contract basis. It is not in my knowledge that all these three companies are unregistered. Voluntarily stated that head office deals with these companies. It is correct that I and my organization has not attached any contract entered into by Daily Jang or The News with these companies. The petitioner was not employee of Daily Jang or The News rather he was a contract employee. I do not know as to whether any payment was made to him by the contractor or not. It is not in my knowledge as to whether correspondent with regard to petitioner is attached with the reply or not. It is not in my knowledge as to whether payment under the 7th Wage Board Award has been made to the petitioner by the contractor or not. I cannot tell about the issuance of office cards as appointment is made at the head office at Karachi. I am working as Manager (HR and Administration). It is not in my knowledge as to whether the contractor companies advertise any advertisement for hiring their employees. It is incorrect to suggest that I can appoint or terminate the employees. Voluntarily stated that head office at Karachi has this authority. It is incorrect to suggest that I have no knowledge about this case. It is not in my knowledge as to whether any correspondence between INS and Daily Jang, Lahore with regard to appointment of petitioner is attached with reply of the respondent or not."
4. After recording of evidence of parties, Respondent No. 1, Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman, Editor-in-Chief of Jang Group/Jang Lahore filed a Writ Petition No. 6016/2021 before the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore with the contention that issue No. 1 is required to be decided first, therefore, an appropriate direction be issued to ITNE to treat the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary and decide the same in the first instance. The above said the writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 28/01/2021 and notices were issued to the parties. In the meanwhile, ITNE was allowed to continue with the proceedings but was directed not to pass the final order. Thereafter above said case was fixed on 09/03/2021 and after hearing the arguments at length, honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore disposed of above said writ petition in the following terms:-
9. In this view of the matter, this Court also finds the same reasons to follow the order of the Divisional Bench of Islamabad High Court and direct respondent No. 1/Chairman ITNE to decide the question of jurisdiction first, which is as follows:- "Whether this Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to hear the instant application as the petitioner is not employee of the respondent establishment?"
Keeping in view the long pendency of the matter, it is appropriate that it be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from today.
5. Since, office of Chairman ITNE was lying vacant since 06/03/2021 till 14/10/2022, therefore, no proceeding could take place. However, on becoming functional, the Tribunal issued notices to the parties for 28/12/2022, when learned counsel for respondent sought adjournment to prepare his brief. Request was allowed with a direction to provide credentials of Respondent No. 2 to determine its status as to whether it is a company or otherwise. Respondent No. 1 was also directed to provide incorporation certificate, list of Directors of Company. Memorandum and Article of Association, Audited Accounts of the company and agreement executed between Jang Group and Respondent No. 2 and matter was posted for 15/02/2023 but respondent failed to provide the documents and matter was posted for 28/04/2023 as both the parties sought adjournment for filing of arguments, which was allowed. On 26/05/2023 Mr. Faisal Iqbal Khan Advocate submitted written arguments on behalf of Respondent No. 1 but no documents were submitted as required through order dated 28/12/2022 and matter was adjourned for 20/06/2023, 18/10/2023 and 11/01/2024 when petitioner submitted his written arguments but none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 nor any such documents were submitted as required through order dated 28/12/2022 thus case was reserved for order.
6. Record perused, including written arguments filed by the parties. Unfortunately during pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner passed away on 23/0512020 and learned counsel for petitioner submitted list of legal heirs along with death certificate. As far as merits of the case is concerned, before filing of the above said Writ Petition No.6016/2021 case was concluded as both the parties had led their respective evidence but the management approached the honourable High Court to seek a direction upon the Tribunal to decide the issue of jurisdiction in the first instance.
7. As noted above, issues Nos. 1 and 2 are co-related, which related to jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hearing of the case of petitioner as "newspaper employee", therefore, it would be appropriate to dilate upon Issues Nos, 1 and 2 in the first place and deal rest of the issues thereafter.
8. While embarking upon Issues Nos. 1 and 2, it is pertinent to mention that this Tribunal has already decided similar issue in the case titled Muhammad Idrees Abbasi v. The News Publications (Pvt.)
Limited, Rawalpindi through order dated 30/12/2022, wherein, similar issue was framed i.e. "Whether or not the applicant is a newspaper employee of Respondent/newspaper establishment" and thus respondent establishment filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C. and Section 13 (1)(c) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 with a prayer to return the application to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the above said case titled Muhammad Idrees Abbasi v. The News Publications (Pvt.) Limited, Rawalpindi, similar facts were alleged by the respondent management contending that Muhammad Idrees Abbasi is an employee of M/s Total Media Solution and had no nexus with the respondent establishment. Respondent also denied his status as a "newspaper employee" as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, therefore, after hearing the parties at length, the above said issue of jurisdiction as well as relationship of Muhammad Idrees Abbasi with the respondent management was dealt with judiciously and this Tribunal rendered following order and consequently application under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 was dismissed and respondent management was directed to provide requisite documents including detail of company i.e. incorporation certificate, List of Directors, Memorandum and Article of Association, audited accounts of the company and agreement executed between the company and the respondent establishment. For brevity of the parties, order dated 30/1212022, passed in case titled Muhammad Idrees Abbasi v. The News Publications (Pvt.) Limited, Rawalpindi is reproduced hereunder:- "2. Through instant application, respondent has denied the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by raising an issue i.e. "Whether or not the application is a newspaper employees of the Respondent/newspaper establishment", a question that is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. In the body of the application, respondent has contended that this Tribunal is only constituted for implementation of decision of the Wage Board where parties admit, their interse relationship as employee and employer. Furthermore, the petitioner/applicant is a stranger to respondent after 07/07/2007 as according to him applicant was an employee of an "outsourced contractor". Hence, applicant is no more employee of the respondent, therefore, application under Order VII, Rule 10 read with section 151, C.P.C. and Section 13 (1)(C) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 be allowed and petition/application be returned for filing of the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
3. In support of his contention, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner was employed by outsourced contractor i.e. M/s. Total Media Solutions (TMS), whom he rendered services up to 19/12/2018. Messrs Total Media Solutions is not a party in instant proceedings before this Tribunal.
Furthermore, petitioner has not filed any claim against third party contractor and name of the petitioner is not included in the declaration, filed by respondent on 7th Wage Board Award and last but not least, petitioner was admittedly an employee for respondent from 13/10/1992 to 06/07/2007 and if at all petitioner has any claim against present respondent till 2007, it is barred by time as held by honourable Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in judgment reported as 2019 PLC (C.S.) 541, titled as Iqbal Mustafa Bukhary v. Daily Khabrain, Islamabad.
4. On the other hand, representative of the petitioner has vehemently opposed the application, filed under Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. as well as contentions made by learned counsel for the respondent and submitted that the petitioner is a newspaper employee who has rendered services to respondent establishment within its premises since 13/10/1992 to 19/12/2018 continuously and without any break. Further submitted that he has been rendering service to the respondent establishment directly or indirectly for the publication of its newspaper known as Daily, The News, Rawalpindi from Al-Rehman Building, Murree Road, Rawalpindi. He admitted that he was a regular employee of respondent establishment from 13/10/1992 to 06/07/2007 and from 07/07/2007 to 13/12/2018. He was engaged by the respondent through its contractor namely M/s Total Media Solutions (TMS) to render services to respondent establishment within the same premises and was performing same duties under third party contract but he was not given any termination letter on 06/07/2007 by the respondent establishment rather he has been receiving salary from the respondent establishment till March, 2008. He further submitted that respondent has not paid even a single penny till date on account of his terminal dues for the services rendered by him i.e. gratuity, provident fund or leave encashment etc. as admissible to him under the 7th Wage Board Award. He has further contended that for all intent and purposes, he is a newspaper employee as defined under section 2(d) of the Newspaper Employees (conditions of Service) Act, 1973, wherein it has been specifically provided that:- "newspaper employee means any person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment".
5. He further emphasized on definition of "newspaper establishment", provided in Section 2(e), which reads as under:- "newspaper establishment" means an establishment under the control of any person or body of persons whether incorporated or not, for the production, printing or publication of one or more newspaper or for conducting any news agency or syndicate;
6. He further added that Section 4 of the Act bid provides that service of a newspaper employee shall not be terminated by a newspaper establishment without good cause shown, through a notice, in writing, of such termination and in the instant case the respondent establishment has claimed that petitioner is no more employee of respondent establishment after 06/07/2007 but respondent has neither produced nor appended with any document to this application which could demonstrate that services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent on 06/07/2007 strictly in accordance with law. In support of his contention, ho relied upon the judgment, passed by honourable Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No. 451/2016 and Writ Petition No. 2221/2016. Relevant para-06 of the said judgment, announced on 09/11/2016 is hereby reproduced for brevity and convenience:- "Admittedly, the respondents in all the petitions either continue to be or had been employees of the respective 'Newspaper Establishments'. Some of them were not in service at the time of filing the claims/applications before the learned Tribunal. The Act of 1973 has been enacted for the benefit of the employees, inter alia, to give effect to the 'Wage Awards' announced from time to time. The said enactment provides a mechanism for the effective implementation of the 'Wage Board Awards'. Section 2(d) defines 'Newspaper Employee' as meaning any person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any 'newspaper Establishments' and includes the categories mentioned in clauses (i) & (ii) respectively. The definition by no stretch of imaginations can be construed as covering only such employees who continue to be in service while excluding those who no more remain as such. In all the petitions, it is an admitted position that the petitioners are or were employed in the respective 'Newspaper Establishments'. If the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted then it would lead to an absurd situation i.e. that an employee who no more remains in service will be left without a remedy in order to assert a right. Even otherwise, such interpretation would tantamount to reading into the statute something not provided therein. If the legislature had intended to exclude such employees from the definition of the expression 'Newspaper Employees' given in section 2(d) of the Act of 1973, then it would have used express and unambiguous language in this regard. With utmost respect and for the reasons already discussed, I am not inclined to concur with the judgment rendered by the Quetta High Court in the case titled as Mayour, Municipal Corporation, Quetta v. Abdul Nabi and 95 others [1986 PLC 764]."
7. In this regard he has also relied upon judgment dated 19/10/2016 authored by the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in C.P. No. 3928/2016 to C.P. No. 3934/2016, titled Nidai Millet (Pvt.) Limited v.
Liaqat Ali and others whereby, above said judgments of the Honourable Islamabad High Court, Islamabad were upheld by dismissal of CPs' by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. In support of his contentions, he has also relied upon judgment dated 17/09/2018, passed by this Tribunal in case No. IT/S/7-WBA/23/SM, titled as State v. Daily Awam, Karachi wherein it has been held that if a worker is employed to do any work in or in relation to any newspaper establishment and is performing under the control/supervision of the management in the premises of the establishment and is involved directly or indirectly in achievements of the objects of establishment i.e. publications of newspaper then he would be considered to be an employee of the establishment for all intents and purposes and would be entitled to the wages in terms of the Wage Board Awards. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment, passed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as 2013 SCMR 1253 titled Fauji Fertilizer Company v. NIRC and others, wherein, the honourable Apex Court has held that in case where an employer retains or assumes control over the means and methods by which work of a contractor is done it may be considered that the relationship of employer and employee exists between him and employees of the contractor. Further, an employee who is involved in running of affairs of the company, under the direct supervision and control of the company, working within the premises of the company, involved directly or indirectly in manufacturing process, shall be deemed to be employees of the company. In order to further strengthen his contention; the authorized representative has also relied upon the judgment rendered by the apex Court, reported as 2018 SCMR 1181 titled as State Oil Company v. Bakht Siddiqui and others. Relevant portion is reproduced hereunder for convenience:- "Companies/Industries had adopted the practice of outsourcing the employment of posts which were permanent in nature --- Record showed that employees in question had been in service starling from as far back as the year I984--- Outstanding of employees seemed to be a sham or pretence --- Employees in question, even if assumed to be employees of contractor, had been performing duties of permanent nature and should have been regularized -- Supreme Court directed that employment of the employees in question shall be regularized with effect from the date when they approached the High Court through the Constitutional petition but for their pensionary benefit and other long terms benefits, if any, available under the law, they would be entitled from the date when they joined service of the company -- Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed accordingly."
8. He has further relied upon judgment dated 20/05/2015, passed by this Tribunal in case titled as Masood Majid Syed v. Daily Pakistan, wherein it was held that if a right has accrued to the petitioner during service, he can approach this Tribunal even after severance of his relations with the establishment through resignation or termination as the case may be. In this regard he further relied upon judgment reported as 2019 PLC 130, wherein it was held as under:- "Company had contractual relationship with contractors/service providers who had been paying salaries/wages to the employees. No privity of contract existed between the Company and service provider and even between Company and workmen. Workers who performed the work at the premises of Company and whose services were engaged by the contractors/service providers were in fact employees of the Company. Work performed by such workers was of permanent nature."
9. The authorized agent further submitted that even otherwise, this Tribunal has ample powers under sections 13 and 13A of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 for the implementation of Wage Board Award' and in order to conduct its proceedings, this Tribunal has also been vested with additional powers as provided under section 16A of the Act ibid. Furthermore, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and provision of erstwhile Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXVIII of 1969) and presently Industrial Relations Act, 2012 are also applicable to the Newspaper Employees or in relation to workman of newspaper establishment, therefore, by drawing an inference from the definition of "Worker and Workman" case of the petitioner does fall within the ambit of law as the above said definition of Worker and Workman provides:- "(xxxiii) "worker" and "workman" mean person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employm ent as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or a contractor whether the terms of employment are express or implied."
10. Hence, respondent has no authority under the law to deny its relationship with petitioner. He further submits that the denial of relationship by the respondent is nothing but a desperate and shameful attempt to frustrate the legal proceedings before this Tribunal. Hence, application merits dismissal with costs.
11. In view of the above, I have given anxious consideration to submissions, put forth by both sides and after careful perusal of the file and documents annexed therein with the assistance of both sides, in light of the judgments of the apex Courts, relied upon by authorized representative of the petitioner as well as various provisions of law, I intend to agree with the contentions made by authorized representative, as the Apex Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the words "employed by the company" are wide enough to include workmen employed by the contractors of the company. The employees of the contractor shall be the employees of the company, if the contractor engaged the workers for running of the affairs of the company and not for some other independent work, which has no concern with the production of the company, which constituted one of the principal organs of the company, the machines belong to the company, the raw material is supplied by the company and the said department is controlled by the supervisors of the company, the employees of the contractor shall be the employees of the company, the employees engaged directly or through a contractor would be deemed to be the employees of the company whose benefits they perform functions, even though control test is an important test, it is not the sole test; a multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the factors for and against the employment has to be adopted, including an "integration" test; and if the contract is found to be not genuine and a device to deprive the employees from their legitimate rights/benefits, the so- called contract employees will have to be treated as employees of the company.
12. It would also be pertinent to mention here that similar view is taken in another judgment by the honourable Apex Court, reported as 2018 SCMR 157, titled as Abdul Ghafoor and others v. The President, National Bank of Pakistan. The apex Court held that:- Petitioners were rendering janitorial services in various offices and branches of the state owned Bank for several years, on the basis of contract executed directly between them and the bank for different spans of 11 months, from time to time. Serves rendered and work performed by the petitioners was of permanent nature. Like any other employee or worker, the petitioners were rendering manual services for the Bank. Neither the petitioners were supplying any manpower nor any goods to the Bank; nor were they getting any job done by acquiring and/or engaging the services of others; nor were they paid on item to item and/or project basis, thus they clearly did not fall within the definition or category of "contractors" instead of "contract employee" and "contract employment". Since the petitioners for all intents and purposes were engaged/employed by the Bank and were being paid salary/compensation for the services they rendered, on monthly basis from year to year, and having so served for more than one year on several 11 months stints, they had earned entitlement for regularization of their services with the Bank. Supreme Court directed the bank to regularize the services of the petitioners as permanent employees. Appeal was allowed accordingly.
13. Similarly, the Lahore High Court, Lahore in judgment reported as 2001 PLC 124, titled as Muhammad Akram v. Umer Hayat and 2 others has held that Employees even if they had received benefits from employer, would not be estopped to file grievance petition before Labour Court and further held that, contention that employers were well within their right to terminate services of 50% of staff of their own choice was repelled.
14. At this point of time, it is pertinent to mention here that it has become a practice on part of the employer to frustrate not only the provisions of law for the time being in force but also to deny the fundamental rights of life, trade, service and family of employees by adopting deceptive measures in order to deprive its employees from their legitimate rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and outsourcing of service is just an example. In this regard, guidance is sought from the dictum laid down by honourable Apex Court that courts cannot close their eyes but could lift corporate veil for purposes of ascertaining real motive behind a scheme.
Correct approach for sanctioning of a scheme was that the same should not be scrutinized in the way of a carping critic, a hairsplitting expert, a meticulous accountant or a fastidious counsel, each trying to find out from his professional point of view what loopholes were present in such a scheme.
What technical mistakes have been committed or what legal rights of one or other sides have not been protected. In this regard, reliance 'is placed upon PLD 2019 SC 250 and 2018 CLD 15, wherein, the apex Supreme Court of Pakistan held that accused could not be given the benefit of corporate veil when the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 empowered the NAB authorities to pierce the veil of incorporation and prosecute the real person under whose dictate and command affairs of offending corporate entity were conducted and to find out who was the actual beneficiary of crept, committed under the Ordinance.
15. For what has been' discussed above, application filed by the respondent under Order VII, Rule 10 read with section 151 of C.P.C., 1908 and Section 13(1)(c) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 is hereby dismissed and respondent is directed to provide detail of the company i.e. M/s. Total Media Solutions (TMS) and M/s. Value Added Services Corporation (VASC, in other connected cases) along with their legal status/documents, incorporation Certificate, List of Directors, Memorandum and Article of Association, audited accounts of the company and agreement executed between above said companies and the respondent establishment before the next date of hearing, to proceed further in the matter."
9. As far as rest of the issues are concerned, which were framed on 23/10/2019, respondent has been failed to discharge its onus and to corroborate its contentions with any piece of document either placed or exhibited on record. As far as Issue No. 5 is concerned i.e. "Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover arrears accruing due to difference between the wages actually paid and due under the 7th Board Award, if so, to what amount (OPA)?", petitioner has already established that he was not paid salary and allowances in accordance with 7th Wage Board Award, therefore, he is entitled to be dealt with in accordance, with the law and fixation of salary and allowances as per 7th Wage Board Award. In support of his contention, petitioner has placed on record original bank statement, issued by HBL, Davis Road Branch, Lahore, which clearly reflects that salary of the petitioner was credited by the respondent from various accounts including Jang, Lahore, The News Lahore and INS, which clearly reflects that petitioner was working in the establishment of Respondent No. 1 and was rendering services to the Respondent No. 1 in its premises. In this regard the definition of "worker" and "workman" as prescribed under Section 2(xxxiii), which is already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs, is sufficient to establish relationship of petitioner and respondent organization and respondent establishment cannot be allowed to wriggle nut from discharge of its liability under the law and thus petitioner is hereby held entitled to gratuity Rs.
15,000 x 6 = Rs. 90,000/- as his last pay drawn was Rs.15,000/- per month.
10. Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 90,000/- as gratuity within thirty days from the receipt of this order. Office is directed to issue copy of this order the parties and their counsels through courier at their given addresses. Disposed of. File be consigned to record room accordingly.