These purport to be seven appeals under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with sec--tion 10-A of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960. I propose to dispose of these appeals by common order as the points urged by the learned Advocates for the parties arc common to all the appeals. The respondent No. 1 is the Second "Wage Board for Working Journalists whips the respondent No. 2 is Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists. It is not necessary to give the facts giving rise to these appeals. The points urged by Mr. Hafeez Firzada, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 are purely legal.
2. These appeals arise in connection with the demand of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists for the fixation of Interim Relief pending the fuller consideration and revision of Wage Structure of the Working Journalists fixed by the First Wage Board this would appear from para. 1 of the decision of the learned Chairman of the Second Wage Board for Working Journalists dated December 10, 1969. It may be mentioned here that there is some discrepancy in the date of decision given in the Lahore Gazette and the decision of the learned Chairman published in the Dacca Gazette. The Dacca Gazette gives the date- of decision as December 20, 1969 while Lahore Gazette gives the date as December 10, 1969. This discrepancy is not material so far as the disposal of these appeals are concerned:
3. The main contentions of Mr. Hafeez Firzada, learned Advocate for respondent No. 2 are two, namely (1) That no appeal lies against a decision granting Interim Relief (2) What the appeal is time-barred. I purpose to dispose of these contentions separately.
4. The jurisdiction of Tribunal to hear appeal from the order of the Wage Board has not been challenged. What is urged is that no appeal lies against the interim relief granted by the Wage Board. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Hafeez Pirzada, the learned Advocate for respondent No. 2, ft would be useful to reproduce section 10-A of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). It reads as under:-- "10-A. Decision of Board to be deemed to be award of an Industrial Court.----The decision of the Board published under senior. 10, shall be deemed to be an award of an Industrial Court, arid subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, all the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (Ordinance LVI of 1959), applicable to such award shall, apply to the decision of the Board."
Mr. Pirzada contended that it is only the decision of the Board published under section 10, which could be deemed to be an "Award" of the Industrial Court. All the decisions of the Wage Board, it is submitted, cannot be called an "Award". In this connection it would be necessary to make a reference to the provision of under which the Wage Board has to give its decision sand which has to be published under section 10. The relevant provision is contained in section 9(31 and section 10(1) and (2) of the Ordinance. They are as under:- ------9(3). The decision of the Board fisting rates of wages-shall be communicated as soon as practicable to the Provincial Government.
10. Publication of the decision of the Board.-(1) The decision of the Board shall, within a period of one month from the date of its receipt by the Provincial Government, be published in such manner as may be prescribed."
It is clear from the perusal of section 9(3) and section 10(1) of the Ordinance that "Award" referred to under section 10-A is the decision of the Board given under section 9(3).
5. The question is as to whether the interim relief granted by the learned Chairman of the Wage Board can be said to be an "Award" so as to attract the provision of section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In this connection reference may be made to section 13 of the Ordinance, which run as under "13. Power of Board to fix interm rates of wages.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, where the Board is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, it may, by notification in the official Gazette, fix interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists.
(2) Any interim rate of wages so fined shall be binding on all employers in relation to newspaper establishment, and every working journalist shall be entitled to be paid wages at a rate which shall, in no case, be less than the interim rate of wages fixed under subsection (1).
(3) Any interim rate of wages fixed under subsection (1) shall remain in force until the decision of the Board comes into operation under subsection (2) of section 10."
On a proper analysis of section 13 three things are quite clear namely, (1) that it is in the discretion of the Board consideri6g the urgency of the situation to fix interim rate of wages of working journalists, (2) that the interim wages so fixed will be operative up to the time that the final decision of the Board becomes operative, (3) Lastly, that the provision of section 13 of the Ordinance overrides all other provisions of the Ordinance.
6. The words "notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance" in section 13 of the Ordinance have an overriding force. It overrides the provisions of section 10-A of the Ordinance. The interim relief so granted under section 13 to the Working Journalists cannot be said to be an Award so as to attract the provision of appeal contained under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. If an order is-appeal--able it can be modified also. Section 13(3) of the Ordinance does not contemplate any modification of the interim order. The interim order is to remain in force until decision of the Board comes into operation under subsection (2) of section 10 B of the Ordinance.
Right of appeal is a matter of statute. If the Legislature, for some reason or the other, did not thin it proper to make the order appealable a party cannot invoke the same. Reading sections 10-A and 13 of the Ordinance together it is clear to me that interim relief granted by the Wage Board is not appealable. The interim relief is to continue without any modification by the appellate Court till the decision of the Board comes into operation under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Ordinance.
7. Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin, the learned Advocate for the appellants contended that the interim relief granted by the Wage Board is a decision given under section 10 of the Ordinance and therefore appealable as an award. In this connection the learned Advocate relied on the Notification dated January 7; 1970. It reads as under: -- "In pursuance of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 10 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960 read with Rule 15 of the Working Journalists (Wage Board) Rules, 1960, the Government of West Pakistan is pleased to publish herewith the decision of the Second Wage Board for Working Journalists, constituted under the West Pakistan Government Labour Department Notification No. 17.7J (LIV)/ 68, dated the 15th of April 1969."
The learned Advocate relying on the above Notification argued that on the face of it the interim relief granted is a decision to which the provisions of appeal contained under section 37(3) read with section 10-A are clearly attracted. The argument of the learned Advocate, on the face of it, has great force. On a deeper scrutiny however it would appear that the reference in the Notification dated January 7, 1970 reproduced above to subsection (1) of section 10 of the Working Journalists has been made through inadvertence. That the mistake is apparent is clear from the fact that the publication of the decision under section 10 contemplates the decision arrived at under section 9 of the Ordinance and not under section 13 of the Ordinance. In the second place under section 13 it is not-the Provincial Government that has to publish the interim relief in the official Gazette but the Board itself. The Government of East Pakistan was more careful. The publication in the Dacca Gazette runs as under: - "Whereas the Second Wage Board reconstituted by Govern--ment Notification No. 1234/S-I1I/IJ- 7/69, dated the 16th October 1969 is of the opinion that it is necessary to fix interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub--section (1) of section 13 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance 1960, (Ordinance No. XVI of 1960), the said Board fixes interim rates of wages in respect of working journalists as per the decision given by it.
I am of the view that a wrong reference to a-provision of law in the Government of West Pakistan Gazette will not make an order appealable.
F. The intention of the Legislature to empower the Board to give interim relief is quite clear. The intention being to give some positive relief to the working journalists till the final Award. The idea being to make it binding on the emplo3ers till the final decision of the Board comes into operation. I would hold that the decision given is not appealable.
9. Mr. Hafeez Pirzada, the learned Advocate for respon--dent No. 2 contended that the appeal is beyond time inasmuch as under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 "Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) may prefer an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of the delivery thereof."
The learned Advocate contends that assuming that it is an award. It was given ors December 10, 1969'. The appeal has been filed on 5th February 1970 and therefore, it is clearly time-barred. On the other hand, Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin, the learned Advocate f9r the appellants contended that there is nothing on the record to show that the Award was given on :0th of December 1969, within the meaning of section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. In this connection he relied on section 37(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It reads as under:- "(1) An award or decision of a Labour Court shall be given in writing and delivered in open Court and two copies thereof shall be forwarded forthwith to the Provincial Government, provided that if the Central Government, be a party, two copies of the award or decisions shall be forward to that Government as well."
Mr. Arfin submitted that in order the limitation of thirty days from the date, of delivery of the Award may be counted it is necessary to establish that the award was delivered in open Court so as to bring it to the knowledge of the parties concerned. There is nothing on the record to show that the Award was delivered in open Court, The mere fact that the signature of the learned Chairman of the Board bears the date of December 10. 1969, would trot be sufficient to prove that the decision was given in open Court. It is not necessary for the purposes of these appeals to decide the question as to whether the appeals are time-bared not, in view of my decision that the appeals are not competent against the interim relief granted by the learned Chairman of the Wage Board.
10. The appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.