DECISION The petitioner, Agha Arbab Khawar was employed as Staff Reporter in the Daily Gharib, Lyallpur in December 1973. He was relieved from service by a notice published in the same paper on 30-11-75.
Aggrieved by this removal of service, the petitioner has filed this petition under sec--tion 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for re-instatement with back benefits.
2. The respondent resisted the petitioner on the following three grounds :-
(1) the petitioner was a part-time worker din contract, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of workman.
(2) The establishment of Daily Gharib has employed only 8 workers, therefore, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable.
(3) That the petitioner was employed as Field Motivator in the District Population Planning Board, Lyallpur, therefore, he could not be treated as an employee of Daily Gharib.
3. Before taking the case on merits I would like to state that the legislation enacted Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973) so as to safeguard the Newspaper Employees against their employers. Section 4 of this Act related to termination of employment. It is reproduced below :- "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 way he terminated at any time on payment of wages in lieu of the requisite notice."
4. Section 17 of the same Act made West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing orders) Ordinance, 1968 applicable to a Newspaper Establishment. This section runs as under :- "The provisions of the West Pakistani Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 (W. P. Ordinance No. VI of 1958), 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 I thereof, and as if a newspaper employee were a workman within the meaning of that Ordinance.
For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that provisions of Standing Orders 10-B and 11, clauses (6) and (8) of Standing Order 12 and Standing Order 15 of the aforesaid Ordinance shall apply only to a newspaper establishment which fulfils the conditions laid down therein"
5. The above two sections guarantee certain rights to Newspaper Employees. Their first right is that their service cannot be terminated without good cause shown through a notice on writing. In case this procedure is not adopted the termination shall be illegal. Section 17 applied the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 to all the newspaper-establishments. However the provisions contained in Sanding Order N. 2 and clauses (1) and (2) of Standing Order 12 have not been made applicable.
The reason is that similar provisions have been enacted in section 4 and in order to avoid duplicacy the provisions of the Standing Order 2 and certain provision, of Standing Order 12 have been made inapplicable. It is further provided that the newspaper establishment must have 10 employees or it must have employed the same cumber of workers on any day of twelve months preceding the coming into force of this Act. This Act had come into force on 13-8-1973. It is therefore, clear that if the newspaper establishment had employed 10 or more persons prior to 13- 8-1973 the Standing Orders Ordinance would be applicable to it. An explanation had been added to this Act. It takes away certain rights of the Newspaper Employees if the conditions given in the Standing Orders Ordinance are not fulfilled. The exceptions relate to the rights relating to compulsory group insurance, gratuity and punishments. These rights would be available to the newspaper employees if the number of employees are 50.
6. The first question in this case is whether tire petitioner is a workman. The plea of the respondent was that he was a pant time worker and he was getting his wages on contract, therefore, he was not a workman. In the present case the definition given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance and Standing Orders Ordinance is not to be seen. The definition of newspaper employee is given in section 2 of Act, 1973. The petitioner was a Staff Reporter and under this definition he is a newspaper employee. Under section 17 be will be a worker provided it is shown that the number of workers in the establishment are 10 or were 10 prior to 13-8-73. The; petitioner (P. W. 1) says that the number of employees at present is 12. He submitted a list Exh. P. 1 and this list was admitted to be correct by Ghulam Muhammad Shad, Circulation Manager (D. W. 1) appearing on behalf of the respondent. Besides Agha Rashid Akhtar (P. W. 2) a Staff Reporter of Daily Pagham, Lyallpur and Mushtaq Ahmed (P. W. 3) Adver--tising Manager of Daily Pagham said that the number of workers in the establishment of the respondent was 12. In any case it was admitted by all the witnesses that in 1973 the number of workers was 25 or more. In rebuttal the case of the respondent is that the number of employees at present was 8. Reliance was placed on a declaration Exh. D 5 placed before the Wage Board Commission the information given to the Board was that there were two partners, namely Shaukat Naz and Riaysat Ali and the number of employees were 9 whereas one employee Kafayat Ali was honorary. On this bare it was stated that the total number of employees was 8 only. The above list does not include the name of the petitioner. It was definitely stated by Agha Rashid that Kafayat Ali was not an honorary worker but he used to get wages and the respondent establishment had shown him an honorary worker with the sole purpose to get it out of the mischief of Act of 1973. On the basis of the evidence produced before me I am satisfied that the respondent establishment had 25 or 26 workers in 1973 and even at present the number of workers is 10 or more therefore, hold that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applicable to the establishment and the petitioner is a worker.
7. Under section 4 of the Act, 1973 a definite right has been given to the newspaper employers that their services shall not be terminated by a newspaper establishment without a good cause shown in a notice. In the present case no notice was given to the petitioner. On the other hand a nonce was published in Vie Daily Gharib on 30-11-75 to the effect that the petitioner was relieved from service on account of his undesirable activities. The cause in which his service was terminated is his undesirable activities. It was the duty of the respondent to prove that there was some undesirable activities on the part of the petitioner. In the arguments before me it was stated that the petitioner had joined service as Field Motivator in the District Population Planning Board and it was the undesirable activities on the basis of which his service was terminated. It is admitted by the petitioner that he joined service as Field Motivator on 17-4-74 and submitted iris resignation and was relieved from service on 30-10-75. It may be observed that the petitioner end jointed service with the respondent in December, 1974. During this service he joined as Field Motivator on 17-4-74 and submitted his resignation can 30-11-75. He was relieved from service on 30-11-75. The question in whether the joining of service as Field Motivator was an un--desirable activity. The explanation of the petitioner is that the respondent got him employed as Field Motivator on the ground that the respondent was paying him only Rs. 185 p. m. and so he got another job for him so that the respondent should not have to pay full wages. He said that after the award of the Wages Board he resigned from the service of Field Motivator at the instance of the respondent. Believing tie petitioner I hold teat there were no undesirable activities on the part of the petitioner if he bad joined service as Field Motivator at the instance of the respondent. It may be observed that no action was taken by the respondent while the petitioner was in service. An action was taken only after one month of his resignation.
8. In the present case neither the respondent gave any notice to the petitioner as provided in section 4 of the Act of 1973 nor the service was terminated for a good cause. Therefore the order of termination is illegal. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to re-- instate the petitioner with back benefits.