2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.

This Misc. Appeal, under section 30A of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter "the Ordinance") and PEMRA Amendment Act, 2007 is directed against the order dated 01.02.2016, passed by the Council of Complaints (COC) under section 26(5) of the Ordinance, 2002 as amended by PEMRA Amendment Act, 2007 with the approval of the competent Authority.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 herein made a complaint to respondent No.2 on 28.09.2015, alleging therein that on 15.02.2015 he was engaged by the appellant herein under an agreement on monthly emoluments of 75,000 per month with condition that he would work only for the appellant and shall not be allowed to work for any other channel during the agreement period. It was further stated by the respondent No. 1 that he was paid only Rs.31,875/- on 25.03.2015 through cheque, and he requested to respondent No.2 to direct the appellant to issue cheque of his dues of six months.

3. On the complaint of respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 issued notice to appellant, vide letter dated 01.10.2015, which was replied by the appellant, vide letter dated 08.10.2015. Thereafter, the matter was placed before COC, Sindh in its 26th meeting held on 29.12.2015, and after hearing the respondent No.1 and representative of appellant, the COC passed the order on 01.02.2016, directing the appellant to clear the remaining dues of six months of respondent No.1 as per Rs.75,000/- per month after deduction of 10% applicable tax within two weeks of issuance of the notice to the Channel. It is against that order, the instant Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the respondent No.1 was engaged through "Engagement Agreement" for providing services being an artist on 15.02.2015, which he signed after accepting all the terms and conditions of services, whereunder it was agreed by him to produce four shows in a month, each show of 40 minutes duration but he hardly produced two shows for that he was paid accordingly. She has further contended that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.2 is without any jurisdiction as the alleged Complaint of respondent No.1 arose out of service contract between him and the appellant, as such, the scope of dispute, if any, does not come within the ambit of PEMRA or Council of Complaints as enumerated in section 26 of the Ordinance, therefore, initiation of proceedings by the respondent No. 2 against the appellant and passing of impugned order in consequence thereof was corum non judice, nullity and in excess of powers under the law, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court under its appellate jurisdiction.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

6. In order to appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 26 of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, as under:--

26. Council of Complaints.-- [1) The Federal Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, establish Councils of Complaints at Islamabad, the Provincial capitals and also at such other places as the Federal Government may determine. (2) Each Council shall receive and review complaints made by persons or organizations from the general public against any aspects of programmes broadcast or distributed by a station established through a licence issued by the Authority and render opinions on such complaints. (3) (3A) (4) (5) The Councils may recommend to the Authority appropriate action of censure, fine against a broadcast or CTV station or licensee for violation of the codes of programme content and advertisements as approved by the Authority as may be prescribed.

7. From the bare reading of afore-mentioned provisions, it appears that the power of the Council are restricted to receive and review complaints made by persons or organizations from the general public against any aspects of programmes broadcast or distributed by a station established through a licence issued by the Authority and to recommend to the Authority appropriate action of censure, fine against a broadcast or CTV Station or licensee for violation of the codes of programmes content any advertisements as approved by the Authority as may be prescribed.

8. It appears from the perusal of the compliant, made by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 that the dispute, if any, between the respondent No.1 and appellant was regarding terms and conditions of service contract and since enforcing the payment of salaries or dues of service does not come within the jurisdiction of COC, established by the Federal Government under section 26 of the Ordinance, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is in excess of jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Misc. Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order, with no order as to costs. KMZ/R-14/Sindh Appeal allowed.