1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of these two petitions which involve the common question of law and fact and are identical in nature, the petitioner being the same. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent No, 3, in each case, was engaged on contractual basis vide orders dated 4-6-1988 which show that they were appointed for two years commencing from 1-4-1988 till 31-3-1990. Before the expiry of the contract of the respondent No, 3, another order was issued by the petitioner on 25-3-1990 to the effect that the respondent No, 3, in each case, was appointed on regular basis subject to his probation for three months. It was also contemplated in the order that during this period of probation his services could be terminated without any notice and without assigning any reason. Thereafter, on 26-6-1990 before probationary period expired, the petitioner issued orders terminating the services of the respondent No, 3 without assigning any cause. Being aggrieved, the respondent No, 3 served a notice on the petitioner under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Order Ordinance, 1969, which notice was duly replied by the petitioner and consequently the respondent No, 3, in each case, instituted his grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an order allowing the petition of the respondent on 9-2-1992. The respondent, in each case, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal wherein an interlocutory order was passed on 22-2-1992 and ultimately the appeal was dismissed on 28-4-1992. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the employer.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Mazharuddin Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the employees in the present case are governed under the provisions of Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and under the provisions of section 4 of the Act, a probationer whose services are terminated within three months would not be entitled to any notice nor it is necessary to issue show-cause notice for termination of his service. As against this, the case of the respondent No, 3 is that his services are to be counted from the date he was appointed on contractual basis and as such, his service being for more than two years he would be entitled to show-cause notice under section 4 of the Act or alternatively the employees being probationers, their services could not be terminated without assigning good cause or giving them an opportunity of being heard. We have considered the submissions of the counsel. As regards the petitioner's contention, it would be pertinent to reproduce the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Act which read as under:- "17. West Pakistan Ordinance VI of 1968 to apply to the newspaper establishment. ---The provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Stranding Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (W.P. Ordinance No, VI of 1968), as in force for the time being, other than those contained in Standing Order 2 and clauses (1) and (2) of Standing Order 12 thereof, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, apply to every newspaper establishment wherein ten or more newspaper employees are employed or were employed on any day of the twelve months preceding the coming into force of this Act as if such newspaper establishment were an industrial establishment to which the aforesaid Ordinance has been applied by a notification under clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 thereof, and as if a newspaper employee were a workman within the meaning of that Ordinance.
18. Ordinance XXIII of 1969 to apply to newspaper employees. ---Subject to the other provisions of (this 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 to a newspaper employees--
(i) who is employed mainly in 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 of by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature."
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has further read these sections with section 4 of the Act which provides:-- "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 period of continuous service of the newspaper employee with the newspaper establishment is not less than three months but less than two years;
(b) of two months, if the total period of such service is not less than two years but less than three years; and
(c) of three months, if the total period of such service is not less than three years; ' Provided that, if the order of appointment of the 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."
4. A plain reading of section 4 of the Act, reproduced above, would show that an employee would be entitled to show-cause notice in case his service is at least more than three months. Under the present case, it is an admitted position that the respondent No, 3, in each case, was appointed on contractual basis which contract expired on 31-3-1990 but before that an order was issued appointing them to regular post subject to a probation of three months. This order, issued on 25-3- 1990 is on record which categorically provides that the order will take effect from 1-4-1990 and, therefore, the termination of the service of respondent No, 3 on 26-6-1990 is within three months of his appointment of his probation.
5. ' The learned counsel for the respondent No, 3 Mr. Rizwan Siddiqui has pointed out that his previous service, which was on contractual basis may be read in continuation and, therefore, it be held that the total service of the respondent No, 3 is more than two years. This contention cannot be accepted as obviously the previous service of the respondent was on contractual basis and was not a regular appointment whereas the subsequent appointment was on regular basis and the condition attached to that appointment was that the same was subject to probation. Accordingly, now the point that raised is that whether the service on contractual basis can be done away within such unceremonious manner without assigning any reason or giving any show-cause notice. The provisions of section 4 of the Act would show that in case of termination of service of a newspaper employee the same could be done subject to showing good cause and giving a notice as contemplated therein. Therefore, the primary consideration is that a good cause has to be shown.
6. The termination letter issued by the petitioner does not show any cause at all. Even otherwise, it is settled law by now that an appointment in a regular permanent post on the basis of probation does vest the probationer with certain rights as the same is a step towards regular appointment and in case any order of termination is passed or any disciplinary action is sought to be taken against such probationer, he would be entitled to a show-cause notice or at least be apprised of reason for such action taken against him. In the case of Syed Zawwar Hussain Shah v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1968 Kar. 693, a Division Bench of this Court had made such observation.
7. ' In view of the above position, we are of the view that the order of termination issued is contrary to the provisions of section 4 of the Act as no cause is mentioned therein. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition as in our view there are no grounds to interfere with the orders of the two lower Courts.
8. However, there will be no order as to costs.