' AJMAL MIAN, J.-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 17 of the Act, the provisions of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance have been made applicable to the newspapers employees except paras. 1 and 2 of the Standing Order 12 and also in case of an editor.
3. We have gone 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 newspaper 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 provisions of the I.R.O.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in the above petition, and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.