1. This is an appeal preferred against an order dated 4-8-75, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, on a petition of the appellant. Petition was dismissed; hence this appeal.
2. This case has a long history. Appellant joined service of the respondent somewhere in 1970 on a pay scale of Rs. 2,000-100-2500, as an Assistant Editor at Karachi. He is alleged to have not been paid his increments since then. Bonus for the year 1972-73 was also not paid to him as alleged by him. According to the appellant his pay from September 1974, to April 1975, has also not been paid to him. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 2,000 which was incurred by him on his tour to India to cover the visit of a delegation from Pakistan as a news correspondent. He gave a grievance notice and filed his petition before the Junior Labour Court. Respondent raised certain preliminary objections but the petition was dismissed by the Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi on a point of territorial jurisdiction. Appellant came in appeal. I set aside the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, holding that Junior Labour Court at Rawalpindi had the jurisdiction and remanded the case to the same Court for readjudication after taking fresh evidence. No fresh evidence was led by the parties and now petition was dismissed by the Junior Labour Court on a sole point and that is that appellant does not fall under the definition of workman.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that learned Presiding Officer while holding the appellant not to be a workman has con--sidered the definition of an employer and workman as is given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and has not considered the definition of a workman as is given in Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 17 of this Act has made applicable the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called Ordinance No. VI) and section 18 has made applicable to the Newspapers Employees the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 (hereinafter called Ordinance XXIII of 1969). All the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, have been made applicable to the Newspapers Employees. It should be particularly noted that Editors have not been excluded from the applicability of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, so they can invoke the right conferred by Ordi- -nance XXIII of 1969 and Ordinance VI of 1969, but an exception has been made and it is to the effect that persons who are employed mainly in Mana--gerial, Administrative or Supervisory capacity are riot workmen because of the nature of their duties and by reasons of the powers vested in them. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that main duty of the appellant was that of a correspondent. He always attended receptions by Ambassadors of the Foreign Countries, he had been to India for coverage of news so he is very much a workman. Learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court has wrongly held him riot to be a workman. I Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that appellant was employed at Karachi when he was transferred to Rawalpindi to establish a branch of Sun Publications at Rawalpindi. He was incharge of the whole establishment. His designation was Senior Assistant Editor as well as Bureau Chief. He had been making appointments of different employees so much so that an Associate Editor was also appointed by him. He has drawn my attention to Exh. R. C. Which is a photostat copy of an appointment letter of Associate Editor. Exh. R. D. Is again an appointment letter. Again he has drawn my attention to Exh. R. B, this is a photostat copy of a letter written by him to the Editor at Karachi in which be has admitted that all the disbursements which were needed to be made for the Sun Publication at Rawalpindi were effected by him. All the receipts of the Sun Publication were deposited by him in his personal account. He had to pay office rent, electric and telephone bills and other sundry expenses, and some the salary of the staff. He used to prepare and post a monthly statement of income and expenditure to Head Office Karachi. Learned counsel for the appellant has converted this argument and has stated that all these acts used to be done by the appellant subject to the approval of the Head Office.
4. The real test in the instant case is as to what was the substantial duty of the appellant. He was transferred to Rawalpindi from Karachi to establish the office of the Sun Publication and not as a correspondent, and for that purpose he was independent and rented a building and recruited the staff. This is in evidence that he used to sit in office as a Head of the establishment rind the job of an Editor was a sundry duty. He used to direct and control other correspondents and office staff.
5. Had he been a mere Senior Assistant Editor, he would have fallen within the definition of a workman. Had he not been incharge of the Bureau, Sun Publication would have got a Manager at Rawalpindi Station to control the affairs of this branch. In determining this issue this is the real test.
6. He being an experienced man was to control the news staff and to maintain the office. This was his primary duty.
7. In that view of the matter I find that appellant does not fall under the definition of the workmen and there is no force in his appeal. I therefore maintain the order of the Junior Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.