DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,IV at Karachi, dated 22-10-1989, whereby grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. Admittedly the appellant was appointed as Representative of respondent No,2 vide letter, dated 1-12-1987, for the purpose of procuring them advertisements. His pay was fixed at Rs,2,000 per month. He was also to be given some commission on advertisements. He was asked to work in cooperation with respondent No,1. The appellant claims that his services were terminated without any order in writing therefore he served grievance notice upon the respondent on 15-5-1988 and thereafter filed grievance petition which was resisted by the respondent on the ground that his services were terminated by written order, dated 1-1-1988.
4. Admittedly the appellant is a newspaper man and, therefore, is governed by Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 17 of this Act provides the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable to the case of the employees of the newspapers only if newspaper employed on any day in twelve proceeding months ten or more newspaper men.
There is no direct evidence to show that respondents Nos.1 or 2 employed more than ten employees, therefore, provisions of said Ordinance would not be applicable.
5. However certain rights have been created under the said Act of 1973, which the appellant could enforce under section 25-A I.R.O., 1969 if he is able to show that he is workman as defined under the said Ordinance. The definition of workman under section 2(xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969 is very wide and includes all the employees, who are not employers or who do not hold any administrative or managerial post or do not work in supervisory capacity drawing salary of more than Rs,1000 per month. The appellant is neither employer nor does he fall within the three above exceptions therefore, he would be a workman under the I.R.O. And can enforce his rights guaranteed to him under any law or award.
6. Under section 4 of the Act, the services of newspaper employee shall not be terminated without a good cause shown in a notice in writing. The order of termination shows that appellant's services were terminated because he could not procure any advertisement, which fact is admitted by him even in his cross-examination.
7. However question arise whether this notice in writing was served upon the appellant. There is no evidence that notice in writing was served upon the appellant in person. However evidence on record shows, that notice was sent to him through registered, post under envelope which is Ex.R/2.
This R/2 is sent by registered post in the name of the appellant on the address which is given by him in the grievance petition and which is also shown in his appointment order. This letter would therefore, be deemed to have been sent on correct address. Endorsement on this notice dated 6- 4-1988 shows, that the house in question was lying vacant since long time. It appears that therefore, it was returned unserved. The notice sent to the workman on his last known address would be considered as proper service as held in PLD 1981 SC 225. This notice therefore, would be deemed to effective from 6-4-1988. The appellant would be deemed to be in service of respondent No,2 till 6-4-1988 whereafter he is entitled to one month's pay in lieu of notice. There is no evidence to show that respondent No,1 is the employer of the appellant and as such no claim lies against him. Therefore, learned Labour Court has rightly held that no claim lies against respondent No,1. The appeal of the appellant is allowed to the extent that appellant is awarded salary uptil of 6-4-1988 and one month's pay thereafter in lieu of notice. Order to be implemented within two months.