ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, Actg C.J.--This petition by Messrs Hilal-e-Paki;tan (a daily newspaper) is directed against the order of the Sind High Court dated 26-9-1983, dismissing its Constitutional Petition against the order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 12-4-1983.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that Mr. Anwar Sial (respondent No.3) was employed in the petitioner-newspaper as a Sub-Editor in the year 1973. In February, 1976, he was promoted as Senior Sub-Editor in Grade-II. Thereafter in July, 1979 he was required to work as a Manager. Subsequently in January, 1980 he was promoted as Officer on Special Duty in Grade-I and placed in charge of Circulation of the paper. The petitioner-newspaper is stated to have suffered a loss in business and carried out retrenchment of the staff. In this process the services of Anwar Sial (respondent No.3) were terminated by the petitioner by order dated 13-9-1980 on the ground of general retrenchment. Being aggrieved by this order Anwar Sial filed a grievance application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O.) before the Vth Sind Labour Court at Karachi. The application was allowed by the said Labour Court vide its order dated 29-11-1982 and Mr. Anwar Sial respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The petitioner, thereupon, challenged this order in appeal before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal by a very elaborate order dated 12-4-1982, slightly modifying the order of the Labour Court.
Hence the present petition.
3. Although a number of points had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Sind High Court before us he only raised the contention that since Mr. Anwar Sial (respondent No.3) was admittedly working as Officer on Special Duty in Grade- I and was performing the functions of a Manager, he was not a 'workman' and, as such, he could not have invoked the provisions of section 25-A of the 1. R. 0. , which only entitles a worker to bang his grievance against his employer before the Labour Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this contention, as also the learned counsel for respondent-caveator. We feel that there is no force in this contention. Our reasons for this view are that the conditions of service of respondent No.3 are governed by the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 (hereafter called the Act). The term newspaper employee has been defined in p'- section 2(d) of the said Act, which reads as follows:- "2. Definitions.--In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject the context:-
(d) Newspaper Employee' means any person employed to do any work in or in relation to, any newspaper establishment and include---
(i) a whole the journalist, including an editor, a leader writer, news editor, feature writer, reporter, correspondent, copy tester, cartoonist, news-photographer, calligraphist and proof reader; and
(ii) A whole the non-journalist, including a manager, clerk, steno typist, printing engineer, linotype operator, composer, type--setter, photo-studio attendant, printing worker, can accountant and an office peon."
It would be noticed that the definition consists of to parts. The first part says as to what the term 'newspaper employee' means and the second portion specifies as to who are included in the said term. Although an O.S.D. Is not mentioned in the second portion of the '' definition, he would clearly be covered by the first portion thereof. As such we are of the view that respondent No.3 is a 'newspaper employee' within the meaning of the above-noted definition.
5. Section 17 of the Act provides that the provisions 'of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, except the provisions of Standing Order No.2 and clause (2) of Standing Order No:21, shall apply to every newspaper establishment where more than 10 persons are employed, as if such a newspaper establishment was an Industrial Establishment (to which the Standing Orders Ordinance applied by virtue of notification under section 1(4) (c) thereof), and as if a 'newspaper employee', was a workman within the meaning of drat Ordinance (i.e Standing Orders Ordinance.
It would be pertinent to note that section 17 of the Act does not exclude the application of section 12
(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance. That subsection provides that:-- "The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his service of removal, retrench--ment, discharge or dismissal he may take action in accordance with provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an industrial grievance."
A reading of this provision clearly shows that 'workman' under the Standing Orders Ordinance is entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Since, by virtue of section 17 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, a newspaper employee is deemed to be a 'workman' in an industrial concern under the Standing Orders Ordinance. It follows that he, to, has the right to seek remedy for grievance against the employer under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1965.
Consequently we hold that the learned lower Courts rightly held that Anwar Sial respondent could file a grievance petition as such. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force.