ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--We propose to dispose of these two petitions for leave to appeal by a common judgment as both are directed against the same judgment by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court dated 26th April, 1989.
2. A Constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner in C.P. 478-K of 1989 in the High Court, challenging some of the decisions contained in the award of Fourth Wage Board for newspapers employees, which was published through a Notification, dated 16th October, 1985, by the Labour Division, Government of Pakistan. The aforesaid petition had challenged the decisions contained in paragraphs 49 (x)---49(xi), 50, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the award.
3. The learned Judges of the Division Bench who heard the Constitutional petition declared the decisions contained in paragraphs 49(x), 49(xi) and 50 to have been taken in excess of powers vested in the Wage Board. These decisions were declared null an void and of no legal effect.
However, the Constitutional petition was dismissed in respect of the rest of the paragraphs, namely, 53 to 56 of the Award.
The Constitutional petition was resisted by the Chairman, Fourth Wage Board and Implementation Tribunal which defended the legality of the Award. As. The success of the parties on either side was divided, both parties are dissatisfied with the judgment.
4. In Civil Petition No.478-K/1989 filed by the Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi, the following points of law require to be examined:
(1) Whether the Board constituted,. Under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, has unlimited power or any power at all, to declare any payment as wages for the purposes of the said Act.
(2) Whether section 17 of the said Act which incorporates Standing Order 12(6) of the W.P. (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, makes the inclusion of gratuity in the meaning of the wages under section 2(h) redundant.
(3) Whether any other payment declared as wages by the Board under section 2(h) of the Act, excludes the effect of any other special law regulating that payment.
(4) Whether pension being analogous to gratuity, as held by the High Court, empowers the Board to include it in the meaning of wages under section 2(h).
(5) Whether the declaration of pension as wages by the Board has materially altered the terms and conditions of employment.
(6) Whether the Tribunal and the High Court failed to give effect to section 9 of the Act, under which the Federal Government constitutes the Board for fixing rates of wages.
(7)Whether laches debar the petitioner from challenging the inclusion of gratuity in the meaning of wages by all the Wage Boards constituted under the repealed Ordinance and the Act."
In Civil Petition No.502-K of 1989 filed by the Chairman, Fourth Wage Board and Implementation Tribunal, the following points of law require examination:
(1) Whether the decision of the 4th Wage Board is within the purview of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Acct, 1973, in so far it relates to the grant of Study and Research Allowance to the Journalists, payment of Hajj expenses to some of the Newspapers Employees through ballots and Car maintenance Petrol allowance to the Editors/Chief Editors of the Newspapers?
(2) Whether the learned High Court has correctly construed the true scope and import of the various provisions of the aforesaid Act in the light of the criteria enunciated by this Court and other superior Courts?
(3) Whether the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction can substitute its own opinion for that of the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction in the discretionary field?
(4) Whether the learned High Court has correctly interpreted and applied section 2(h) of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
(5) Whether the Hon'ble High Court could interfere with the exercise of delegated power conferred on the Wage Board by the legislature in terms of aforesaid section 2(h) of the Act?
(6) Whether the impugned decision of High Court would stand vitiated on account of misreading of the record?
(7) Whether the High Court in the circumstances of the case was justified in overlooking excessive laches on the part of the respondent No.1 in invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction and the explanation rendered could constitute a valid ground in law for overlooking such conduct amounting to acquiescence, waiver and estoppel when rights had accrued in favour of the third party in the meanwhile?
We accordingly grant leave to appeal in both petitions.
5.In C.P.478-K of 1989 security for costs shall be furnished in the sum of Rs.5,000. Appeals shall be prepared on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents if any.
The appeals arising out of these petitions shall be heard together. As regards stay, it is ordered that the operation of the judgment of the High Court shall be suspended subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the dues in Court which may be withdrawn on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Assistant Registrar of this Court.