This is an appeal from the order of Mr. Amirzada Khan, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, N.-W. F. P.
Peshawar, dated 31-1-1973, whereby the application of Mr. Farigh Bokhari respondent was accepted and he was directed to be re-instated with payment of wages from the date of termination of his service.
2. The brief facts, leading to this appeal, are that Mr. Farigh Bokhari, the respondent, was engaged as a columnist by Daily ---Jang--- Rawalpindi, for writing four letters in a month at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 150.
Mr. Farigh Bokhari was engaged in February 1968 to do the job. It is an admitted fact that Mr. Farigh Bokhari had worked regularly till January 1970 and was paid the remuneration therefor till January 1970. It is alleged that since the month of February 1970 Mr. Farigh Bokhari respondent did not write the four letters required from him for the Daily "Jung" Rawal--pindi and, therefore, the establishment of the Daily "Jang" stopped payment of Rs. 150 per month to the respondent. On the 8th of February 1972 the respondent wrote a Demand Notice Annexure B, and sent it by Registered A. D. Through Q. M. Anwar, Advocate, to the Managing Editor, Daily Jang Rawalpindi. In this notice it was submitted by the respondent that he should be re-instated and his arrears of salary be paid within 10 days from the date of notice, failing which the respondent will seek redress of his grievance in accordance with law. The details of pay, bonus and interim relief have been given in this notice.
3. On 8-3-1972 Mr. Farigh Bokhari submitted an application before the Labour Court, N.-W.F.P.
Peshawar, under section 34 of the I. R. O. 1969 (as amended), praying that he be re-instated as a columnist with the Daily Jang alongwith all the benefits of service. The Managing Editor, Daily Jang, submitted his reply to the application on 18-4-72. In this reply the respondent (now appellant) raised a preliminary legal objection: - ---3. That the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Working Journalists Ordinance 1960 are not applicable to the petitioner's case and therefore his application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine.--- On facts also the respondent to the application in para. 2 of the applica--tion stated as under: - ---2. Para. 2 of the application is also denied and it is submitted that the petitioner was never appointed by the organization of Daily Jang as a whole the or part the working journalist or columnist. As a matter of fact the petitioner is a Homeopath Doctor and was practising at Peshawar. He was writing news letters from Peshawar covering political and special problems of Peshawar City which were published in Daily Jang on the clear understanding that he will be paid Rs. 150 per every four news letters. He contributed news letters to Daily Jang from November 1967 to January 1970 and he was duly paid at the agreed rate of Rs. 150 per four letters written by him. He was not on the Pay Roll of the organization of the Daily Jang as a regular employee.--- The respondent (present appellant) also denied that the petitioner was an employee of the organisation of Daily Jang. It appears that the Management of Daily Jang did not pursue the case before the Labour Court further. Mr. Farigh Bokhari was examined as P.W. 1 on 13-6-72 and he closed his evidence on the same date. The Labour Court passed the impugned order dated 30-1-73, and hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application firstly, that Mr. Farigh Bokhari, the respondent to this appeal, was not a working journalist, within the meaning of Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance XVI of 1960), hereinafter to be called the Ordinance, and secondly that the mandatory provision of Grievance Procedure under section 3-A of the Ordinance, has not been complied with. Section 2(f ) defines "working journalist" as under :- "(f) 'Working journalist" means a person who is a whole-the journalist and is employed as such in or in relation to any newspaper establish--ment, and includes an editor, a leader writer, news editor, sub-editor, feature writer, reporter, correspondent, copy tester, cartoonist, news-photographer, calligraphist and proof-reader but does not include any such person who: (i) is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (ii) being employed in a suspervisory capacity performs either by the nature of the duties attached to his ice or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature."
Section 3-A prescribes grievance procedure and is reproduced below :- ---Any working journalist who has grievance against a newspaper establish--ment employing him (hereinafter referred to as the employer) in respect of any matter covered by this Ordinance and intends to seek redress thereof under this section, shall observe the following pro--cedure: -
(a) the working journalist concerned shall bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance and the employer shall, within thirty days of the receipt of such grievance, inquire into the matter, give the working journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard and communicate his decision in writing, to the said working journalist; (b) if the employer fails to give a decision under clause (a) or if the working journalist is dissatisfied with such decision, he may make a complaint, in writing, to the Industrial Court having jurisdiction, -3,within thirty days from the date of the decision, or where the employer fails to give a decision, within sixty days of the working journalist bringing the grievance to the notice of the employer, unless the grievance has already been raised or has otherwise been taken cognizance of in a labour dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (Ordinance LVI of 1959): Provided that no complaint shall lie against an order of termination of employ--ment of a working journalist in accordance with the provisions of section 4, unless the working journalist concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the working journalist concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade Union or not, has been deprived of the benefits specified in that section; (c) on receipt of any complaint under clause (b), the Court, after notice to the employer concerned and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard may decide the matter in such summary way as it deems proper: (d) in deciding the matter, the Court may pass such orders, including orders regarding costs, as it may deem just and proper and it may, in appropriate cases, require, by such order, therein state--ment of the complainant thereof and such order shall be final (e) no court-fee shall be payable for filing or exhibiting of any complaint or document of any kind in the Court."
5. Mr. Farigh Bokhari in his statement before the Labour Court has deposed that he was engaged as columnist by the establishment of Daily Jang, Rawalpindi, by a contract in writing. However, he has failed to produce any such contract in writing.
In cross-examination the respondent to this appeal has admitted that he was appointed as columnist in February 1968 and that the payment of his wages was stopped from February 1970, by Daily Jang. The respondent has also not produced any document to the effect that his services were terminated by the appellant. It appears that there was no contract in writing for engaging the respondent as columnist and as such there could be no letter of termination of his service. The respondent is not covered by the definition of "working jour--nalist", as he was not the whole the journalist nor employed as such The respondent has not complied with the mandatory provision of grievance procedure under section 3-A of the Ordinance by bringing his grievance to the notice of the appellant in writing within 15 days of the stopping of the payment of his wages. Needless to say that after complying with the grievance procedure the respondent had to raise dispute under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959. This Ordinance of 1959 was repealed by the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. The second Ordinance of 1968 was repealed by the present Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. As stated earlier, Mr. Farigh Bokhari respondent raised his dispute before the Labour Court on 8-3-1973, that a after more than to years and one month. This delay in instituting the application before the Labour Court has not been explained in any way by Mr. Farigh Bokhari, the respondent. For these reasons, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of Mr. Farigh Bokbari under section 34 of the I. R. O.
6. The appellant has preferred this appeal on 12-10-74, after about one year and 9 months of the passing of the impugned order by the learned Labour Court. The appellant has also submitted an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 65-B of the I. R. O. 1969. It is a settled law that if the basic order has been passed without jurisdiction. IC such order does not exist in the eye of law, and there can be no bar of limitation in challenging such order in appeal.
7. Consequently I accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order. No order as to costs.