1978 PLP 95 (PLC)

Sh. Saeed Akhtar for Appellant. The petitioner is a working journalist governed by Newspapers Employees' Conditions of Service Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He is finally now aggrieved by an order terminating his service. He has invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the termination opt bit employment.

2. The specific question which the learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to argue was the effect of availability of an alternative remedy in the Courts established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) for the purpose.

3. The provision which brings in the Ordinance is section 18 of the Act of 1973 which provides that subject to the other provisions of the Act, the provisions of the Ordinance shall apply to or in relation to newspapers emplo yees as they apply to or in relation to workmen within the meaning of the Ordinance. The exceptions provided in the two provisos are not attracted to the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that earlier in the Working Journalists Conditions of Service Ordinance, 1960, there was a specific grievance procedure prescribed immediately after a similar provision as is contained in section 18 just mentioned. It not only provided a grievance procedure but also indicated the forum where the grievance could be taken for adjudication. On the basis of such a provision and the general principle of law that remedy of appeal, revision or review, has to be conferred by express provision, it is contended that the petitioner is without a remedy before the Labour Court.

4. As regards the existence of section 3‑A on the subject of grievance procedure and the forum for adjudication and the omission from the Act, there appears to be a reason. Such a grievance procedure was earlier embodied In the Standing Orders Ordinance and it was only is 1972 that the grievance procedure was transposed there from in the Ordinance, by Ordinance No. IX of 1972 by introducing section 25 A and deleting Standing Order

18. The provision of section 3 of the Repealed Working Journalists Ordinance, 1960, would not have made available any grievance procedure at all if none bad been provided in section 3‑A for the Standing Orders Ordinance as such was not applied to working journalists. Section 3‑A was introduced by West Pakistan Ordinance VII of 1967. After the grievance procedure was made a part of the Ordinance there was hardly left, any need for repeating the same or similar provision for redress of greivances before bringing them in Court. A redundancy has been avoided and the short period that such redundancy existed i. e. after Ordinance IX of 1972 arid before the promulgation of the Act of 1973 cannot be made the basis for claiming an additional and altoge ther different right.

5. It is true that wherever laws are applied by reference, the remedies and the forums become available only if there is express provision for it or they follow by necessary implication. Legislation by refer ence may differ in scope and content. Incorporation of a whole status in its entirety into a different statute by reference is not unknown. It appeal this is a case of such an incorporation with the only qualification that i case of inconsistency the provisions of the Act are to prevail over those of the Ordinance. Therefore subject to this qualification all the procedures, forums and remedies that are provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance automatically became available by such a reference.

6. The more common cases of legislation by reference are confined t a category where for certain specified purposes the procedures provided in other laws are made available. Such are the cases of recording of evidence, summoning of witnesses, maintenance of record ere. for which provisions o Civil Procedure Code are made applicable as in Rent Control Laws. Such an argument as is advanced for the petitioner is justified in those case, because reference being restricted to specified matters cannot then be extended to substantive or penal provisions or to forums.

7. Yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the level at which the remedy is provided, that is of that of a Junior Labour Court, and the position occupied by the petitioner mates that remedy hardly adequate in the circumstances. If the Legislature has in its wisdom classed a journalist irrespective of his remuneration a9 a workman for the purposes of remedies and procedures no grievance can be mode of the prefix "junior" to the expression Labour Court or to its being presided over by a magistrate. The procedure is expeditious, the remedies are substantial and the right of appeal is there.

8. Finally, it is contended that the action taken against the petitioner being without jurisdiction ab initio, remedy by such a Constitutional petition is permissible. This basis could be availed of only if the petitioner of necessity had to go to that departmental authority or in tie same hierarchy in which the jurisdiction was challenged. The Labour Courts being not departmental authorities but Tribunals having exclusive jurisdiction in such matters the petitioner can without submitting to jurisdiction of the depart mental authorities challenge their acts as without jurisdiction. Besides, the petitioner has already earlier benefited from proceedings in Labour Courts and cannot be said to be so helpless or uninitiated in the matter.

9. None of the grounds advanced makes out a case for entertaining the grievance at this stage in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

10. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.