DECISION ' These two appeals from a common order of Labour Court No, I, Karachi, dated 9-2-1992, have arisen in the following circumstances.
2. Both the respondents were appointed as `Daftaris' in June, 1988 on contract for a period of two years each. A few days before the end of contractual period, to be precise, on the 25th of March, 1990, both of them were appointed as Daftaris' in Grade VII of Metropolitan Category 'A' with a gross pay of Rs,2,005 p.m. The appointments were to take effect from the Ist of April, 1990 and the respondents were to be on probation for a period of three months, during which, as per appointment letter, "his/her services can be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason". On the 26th of June, 1990 both the respondents received letters terminating their services which were couched in the following words:-- "In terms of Condition No, 2 of your appointment order dated 25-3-1990, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect.
' You may collect your dues, if any, from Accounts Section of Daily "JANG", Karachi on any working day during office hours."
3. The respondents after the usual grievance notices filed grievance petitions in the Labour Court which came to be allowed, resulting in these appeals which will be disposed of again by this common decision.
4. Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants urged before me that the provisions of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 had no application in the case because the `Newspaper Employees' would be governed by the provisions of Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973.
5. Section 18 of the Act referred to above, reads as under:- "18. Ordinance XXIII of 1969 to apply to Newspaper employees.---Subject to the other provisions of Act, the provisions of the Ordinance shall apply to, or in relation to, newspaper employees, as they apply to, or in relation to workmen within the meaning of the Ordinance: ' Provided that nothing in this section applies a newspaper employee---
(i) who is employed mainly on a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(ii) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity or is the Editor of a newspaper, performs either because of the nature of duties attached to his office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
The bare reading of this section is enough in the circumstances of the dispute, to dispel the contention. Even section 4 of this Act is 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, if the total of continuous service of newspaper employee with the newspaper establishment is not less than three months but less than two years;
(b) ..
(c) ..
' Provided that, if the order of appointment of 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 time on payment of wages in lieu of the requisite notice."
6. It is hardly necessary to animadvert to the evidence led in the two cases. Mention may however be made to the reply of Rafiq Ahmad in cross-examination that he had himself left the job on 26- 6-1990. Looking to the documentary evidence on the record it was something blurted out in sheer pique, signifying nothing.
7. Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the cases of M/s. Pak Cement Company Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and another 1990 PLC 233. The point involved there was a termination simpliciter. Nothing smacked therein of mala fides or colourable exercise of power. The next case cited was of the Independent Newspapers Corporation Ltd. v.
Ziaullah Sajjid 1986 PLC 1128. This would not be relevant as it deals with the question as to whether a charge-sheet or enquiry would be necessary for the termination of the services of a probationer.
The case of Pakistan International Airlines v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1980 SC 323 dealt with a contract of short duration and the question that came up for consideration was that if the period was extended beyond nine months would the employee still be treated as permanent workman?
8. As against these, looking to the text of Standing Order 12 clause (3) and the following cases namely Aijaz Husain Shah v. Zaman Textile Mills 1976 PLC 637 and Nayab Ali Khan v. Pak Automobile Corporation 1989 PLC 895 the services of the employees could not be terminated except by an order in writing and stating therein the reasons for such action. Nothing of this sort has been even attempted in this case. Both the respondents began their career with the appellants on contract of two years, and thereafter were given permanent jobs with a period of three months' probation each. They were unceremoniously removed within this period. Patently the pattern of these cases betrays colourable exercise of power and can be hardly said to be bona fide.
9. There is no merit in the appeals. I would, therefore, dismiss them.