DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi dated 7-10-1989.
2. I have heard Mr. Ch. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The fact of the case are that the respondent was working as Caligraphist on piece rated basis with the appellants in connection with the publications of Akhbar-e-Khawateen, when his services were terminated on 14-12-1987. Aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the appellants and thereafter he filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the appellants on the ground, that the respondent was retrenched due to reorganisation as his services had become surplus.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised preliminary legal objections and submitted, that the respondent was engaged on the publication of Akhbar-e-Khawateen and as such he had no cause of action against the present appellant. The publication is admittedly done in the press of the appellants and the work done by the respondent would be in the establishment of the appellants, which fact is admitted by the witness of the appellants before the learned Labour Court. As such the respondent would be the employee of the appellants. The services of the grievance notice upon the appellants is not denied. The fact that the respondent is the employee of the appellants is also evident from the plea of appellants that the alleged retrenchment of the respondent was due to introduction of mono type system in the appellants' press and hence the services of the respondent had become surplus.
5. It is not disputed, that in case of reorganisation, if the services of an employee become surplus, the employer has right to terminate the services of a workman in accordance with the provisions , of the Standing Orders 13 and 14. However, even in that case, the service of any employee has to be terminated by an order in writing showing explicit reasons as required under Standing Order 12(3).
6. Kis not contended that the respondent was not a workman. Admittedly about 150 workers are working in the establishment of the appellants at Karachi and as such the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable in view of the section 17 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of I Service) Act, 1973.
7. Under Standing Order 1 the workers are divided into five categories viz. (i) permanent, (ii) probationers, (iii) badlis, (iv) temporary, and (v) apprentices. There is no category of workers as piece rated workers. In fact piece rate does not categorise worker but it only provides the mode of payment of his wages. Even piece rated workmen therefore, would have to be fitted in any one of the five categories mentioned in the Standing Order 1. The respondent was admittedly working since 15-11-1980 and as such he would be deemed to be a permanent workman. Therefore, his services could not be terminated even on the ground of retrenchment, except by an order in writing showing explicit reason for the termination of the service.
8. These provisions of Standing Order 12(3) are also subject to the other provisions of Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act. Section 4 of this Act provides that the services of a newspaper employee shall not be terminated by a newspaper establishment without good cause shown therein through a notice in writing which would be three months, if the total period of his service was not less than three years. Admittedly in the instant case there is no order or notice in writing. As such the oral order of the appellants was not sustainable and has rightly been set aside by the learned Labour Court.
9. With regard to back benefits, the learned Labour Court has made the following order:-- "Since the earning of the petitioner could not be fixed amount for the reason that he was admittedly piece rated worker as such respondents are directed to draw up monthly earning of the petitioner on the average basis of his earning from the period of last/previous 12 months commencing from November, 1987 and then pay him the back benefits accordingly in terms of the Act of 1973 read with the Journalists Award of 1985 Annexure-R/1".
10. No doubt the respondent had not done any work during the period in question, but that was not of his own choice. It is submitted by Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the appellants that the respondent was offered alternate work, which admittedly, he refused to do. The workman employed for a particular job is not bound to do any other work.
11. Under the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Labour Court, which is just and fair. Appeal is dismissed. Orders to be implemented within one month.