1. Petitioner joined services of the respondent in June, 1949 He was holding the post of an Editor, Daily Imroze on 28 of September 1974. His services were terminated w. e. f. that date without any good cause shown as is required under section 4 of the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service)
2. Act; 1973 (hereinafter called the Act of 1973). He served the newspapers for more than 10 years, therefore, no notice of 3 Months was given to the petitioner and he was pot paid wages of 3 months in lieu of notice.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent by the Presiding Officer Mr. C. J. Pervez of the then Junior Labour Court. Petitioner was re-insisted. Man--agement of the respondent went in appeal before the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore and the case was remanded by Malik Lehrasap Khan, the Then Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No 1, Lahore on the ground that evidence-rep was not recorded properly before announcement of the judgment so after remand evidence was either recorded by the Presiding Officer of the abolished Junior Labour Court or by my learned brother, Malik Lehrasap Khan, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore when this petition fell to his lot to be disposed of in the original jurisdiction of that Court.
4. Four witnesses were examined by those Courts on behalf of the respon--dent when this petition came to me after re-adjustment of territorial jurisdic--tions of Punjab Labour Courts at Lahore. I gave an opportunity to the respondent to adduce his remaining evidence but he did not do it so I closed the case of the respondent.
5. It has been alleged by the petitioner that Mr. K. M. Asif, Chairman of the National Press Trust whenever got an opportunity to exercise the power of Chief Executive either as a delegatee or otherwise he had been passing orders adversely against the rights and interests of the petitioner.th He demoted the petitioner in April, 1972 as a Joint Editor. This order was set aside by the then Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore and it was upheld by the High Court in a writ filed by the respondent. Respondent denuded the petitioner of all his functions and obligations as Editor and entrusted the sane to tree Chief Editor on 19-7-74 and this order was with--drawn by him on l6-9-74 and so revision petition of the petitioner was made infructuous but on the same date he passed a similar order. So a contempt application was filed against him in the High Court.
6. He terminated toe services of the petitioner with a mala fide intention and in utter disregard of the law on the subject.
7. Respondent in its written reply has objected that termination of the services of the petitioner wars made under the provisions of the Act of 1973. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is no doubt applicable to the employees of newspapers bait these provisions would be subject to the Act of 1973. Petitioner was getting more than Rs. 800. He was working in bin supervisory capacity. He had been awarding punishments and taking Departmental actions against his subordinates, therefore, he, being an employee in his administrative capacity did not fall under the definition of a ''workman" given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969 and therefore, could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. On merits is has been alleged in the pleading of the respondent that services of the petitioner were terminated in tile larger interests of the newspapers establish: rent and in a bona fide manner.
8. Petitioner's services were terminated under section 4 of the Act of 1973.
9. As regards the objection of the respondent that petitioner is not a workman learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an unreported judgment of the High Court In re: Progressive Papers Ltd. v.
10. Punjab Labour Court. This decision, was given by his Lordship Mr. Justice Shafi-ur---Rehman in W.
11. P. in, "839 of 1975. It has been held by big lordship as follows- "As the name of the post of an Editor itself suggests that an Editor is required to edit a newspaper or periodicals and if any administrative supervisory or managerial duty has beet, entrusted to him in addition to his duties as an Editor is meant function thereby is not in any manner diluted. The post does not come to acquire or become supervisory or managerial simply because sport from being an Editor he is required to discharge certain duties of this nature."
12. Apart from this pronouncement by his Lordship Mr.. Justice, Shafi-ur---Rehman exception given in section 18 of the Act of 1973 does not in any way exclude the petitioner from the definition of a workman as is given in Labour Laws. It is only a person employed mainly in managerial of administrative capacity who is ousted from the definition of a workman in the definition clause of the Act of 1973 a whole time Journalist including an editor has been defined to be a newspaper employee and not a manager or supervisor So for all practical purposes petitioner is a workman as is defined under the Labour Laws and the Act of 1973 and as such he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
13. Respondent has claimed that services of the petitioner were terminated under section 4 of the Act of 1973, section 4 is as, follows:- "Services of a newspaper employee shall not be terminated by a news--paper establishment without good cause shown through a notice, in writing, of such termination As under sub-clause (c) of section 4 petitioner was to be given a notice of 3 months which was not given in this case or he was not paid wages for 3 months in lieu of notice. No good cause was shown. This is not the cast of the respondent that services of the petitioner were terminated for any misconduct on his part or that post of an Editor was abolished. The facts narrated by the petitioner and not denied by the respondent clearly show that order of his termination was passed with a mala fide intention and it was never passed in the larger interest of the administration of the establishment.
14. In view of what has been discussed above I find that petition has ever merit. It is, therefore, accepted and petitioner is directed to be re-instated within two weeks from she announcement of this order. As the order of termination was passed without showing good cause, without an enquiry into any misconduct and as it is not the case of retrenchment, petitioner Is entitled to all his wages and increments from the date of termination, promotion if any till the date of announcement and respondent is directed to pay the arrears within this period.