JUDGMENTNASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J- Petitioner, an employee of respondent No.1 Company which owns the daily newspaper 'Jang', had joined service in 1984. By order dated 21-3-1989, his services were terminated. Certain reasons are given in the Impugned Order dated 21-3-1989, and thereafter it is mentioned that his employment for any further period would not be in the best interest of the Establishment. In the final paragraph of the Impugned Order, it is stated as follows:- "Wriling, publishing and distributing pamphlcts/handbills to malign the employers and superiors, is a good cause for dispensing with your service. As such, in bonafide exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973, we terminate your service with immediate effect. Your legal dues together with three months wages in lieu of the requisite notice period are being deposited in your, accourt with the United Bank Limited, Al- Rahman Branch, Karachi."
2. The following prayers have been made in this Constitution Petition by the petitioner:- "i. That the section how the Newspapers Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1973 and actions taken on the basis of the said section by the Respondent No.1 company against the petitioner are in violation, " conflict and derrogation of the Constitution. Fundamental rights and Injunction of Islam; & direct the respondent No.2 to modify ammend the said section in cOnfirmity with Injunctions of Islam. ii. That the section 4 of the Newspapers Employees Act, 1973 is discriminatory against the Newspapers Employees and in violation of Article 227 of the Constitution, 1973. iii. That the action of the Respondent No.1 is discriminatory and indignifying; and in conflict, derrogation and violation of freedom of speech and expression and against the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan; iv. That the employment of the Petitioner is restored with all the back benefits guaranteed by.
Constitution, Labour Laws; and any award and settlement arrived at inconsequence of negotiations, discussions and settlements arrived at between the respondent No.1 and the representatives of the Union if this Honourable Court comes to conclusion that the petitioner was dismissed from the service;
3. We have heard Mr.Mohammad Faridul Haq, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Mohammad Mazharuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the Employers respondent No.1 and Mr.Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the Government of Pakistan. The relevant provision is section 4 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, which reads as under:- "4. Termination of employment.-The services of a newspaper employee shall not be terminated by a newspaper establishment without good cause shown, through a notice, in writing, of such termination.(a) of one month, of the total period of continuous service of the newspaper employee with the newspaper establishment is not less than three months but less than to years;
(b) of to months, if the total period of such service is not less than to years but less than three years; and
(c) of three months, if the total period of such service is not less than three years: Provided that, if the order of appointment of the newspaper employee provides notice of a longer period, notice shall be given in accordance with the terms of such order: Provided further that the services of a newspaper employee may be terminated at any the on payment of wages in lieu of the requisite notice.''
4. In this petition, vires of entire section 4 of the Act has been challenged, but, before us, Mr.Mohammad Faridul Haq restricted his challenge to the vires of the second proviso only. It was submitted that under the proviso, the services of a newspaper employee can be terminated without good cause shown and in the circumstances, naked power has been given to the employer todiscriminate between different employees. According to the learned counsel under section 4, without the second proviso, action can be taken for terminating the services of a newspaper employee subject to good cause being shown, but in case the employer exercises power available under the second proviso, services of a newspaper employee can be terminated without good cause being shown by making payment of wages in lieu of notice. According to the learned counsel, second proviso violates article 25 of the Constitution.
In our view, the submission of the learned counsel is misconceived. Under section 4 of the Act, a restriction has been placed on the employer by providing that services of a newspaper employee shall not be terminated without good cause being shown. While taking action for termination of employment of a newspaper employee, a newspaper establishment has to give a notice of the required period, showing good cause for termination of service. An option has been given by the second proviso that instead of giving a notice for the requisite period, wages for such period can be paid. However, in such a case also where action is taken under the second proviso, for termination of service of a newspaper employee, good cause has to be shown by the newspaper establishment. In our view, second proviso in section 4 does not dispense with the requirement of the section of good cause being shown for termination of the services of a newspaper employee whether notice of the period is given as provided in the main provision or instead wages are paid in lieu of the requisite notice period. We may reiterate that, in either case, good cause has to be shown.
5. Mr.Mohammad Mazharuddin, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 conceded that good cause has to be shown. He submitted that in fact, according to the respondent No.1, in the Impugned Order good cause has been shown.
According to Mr.Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the Government of Pakistan, also for terminating the service of a newspaper employee good cause has to be shown where a notice for the requisite period is given or wages for the requisite period are paid by the newspaper employment:We are of the view that the second proviso in section 4 of the News-paper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 is neither discriminatory against the newspaper employees nor violates Article 25 of the Constitution.
6. As regards the submission of Mr.Faridul Haq, Advocate, that good cause has not been shown, it may be observed that the proper remedy for the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the order of termination, is the Competent Court. If he is a work-man as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, his remedy lies under the said Ordinance. If he is not a work-man, the competent- forum would be the civil court. The competent forum/court will determine whether good cause has been shown by respondent No.1 for terminating the services of the petitioner, for which purpose, it would be necessary to record evidence.
In the circumstances, this Constitution Petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.