2024 PLP 241 (PLC)

SHAHID MEHMOOD KHOKHAR, CHAIRMAN.

On 14/11/2023, respondent was proceeded ex-parte and thereafter matter was adjourned for 18/12/2023 but due to non-availability of bench, matter could not be heard and consequently respondent was issued notice on 19/01/2024 for fixation of the case for today, but despite repeated calls, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent management 2 Since, the respondent has already been proceeded ex-parte, therefore, petitioner has advanced his arguments and submitted that due to non-payment of salary in time, he was compelled to quit the respondent management, however, he has claimed arrears of salaries from October, 2019 to November, 2020 and thus, has lodged a claim for recovery of Rs.930,000/-.

3. Arguments heard and record perused. On receipt of the petition on 11-12-2020, respondent establishment was issued notice on 15-12-2020 for filing of reply and statement of accounts on 21-01-2021 but none appeared on behalf of respondent, therefore, matter was adjourned for 17-02-2021, when Ms. Amna Malik, Printer / Publisher, Daily Asian Telegraph, Islamabad entered appearance and sought adjournment enabling her to engage a counsel of her choice and to file reply in the matter but thereafter, due to non-availability of bench, matter could not be heard and on 03-11-2022, parties were issued notice "pairwi" for 11-11-2022. On the said date Chaudhary Shehraz Sohail Advocate learned counsel for respondent sought adjournment to prepare his brief as during the period when bench was not available, respondent submitted its written reply, wherein, certain preliminary objections were raised viz-a-viz maintainability of the petition with the contention that petitioner has filed instant petition to blackmail, harass and pressurize the respondent, therefore, he is not entitled for any monetary relief. On merits respondent asserted that petitioner has no prima facie case nor cause of action and respondent does not owe any liability, as the petitioner was only an article writer and he has been receiving the salary through bank account and finally, he refused to work. Even in the period of Covid-19 respondent has been paying salaries to the employees but since the petitioner refused to work with the respondent management, therefore, he is not entitled to receive benefits for the said period.

4. On 31-03-2023, petitioner submitted three publications of magazine as well as transcript of his whatsapp messages with Ms. Amna Malik, Editor in Chief of the respondent management, copy of which is handed over to learned counsel for respondent who sought adjournment enabling him to file statement of account along with supporting documents and matter was posted for 01-06-2023. On the said date Mr. Naveed Abbas Advocate appeared on behalf of principal counsel and sought adjournment due to non-availability of learned counsel for respondent and thereafter, none appeared on behalf of respondent management despite issuance of notices and thus, respondent was proceeded ex-parte on 14-11-2023 and matter was fixed for 18-12-2023 but due to non-availability of bench could not be heard and matter was fixed for today. Despite repeated calls none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent, therefore, petitioner was allowed to argue his case. Petitioner has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards the publication of magazine with a contention that assertion of the respondent to the extent that petitioner was only an article writer is baseless and evasive for the reasons that he remain attached with the respondent group of publications i.e. Daily The Asian Telegraph and Melange Monthly Magazine as a founding Editor for the period of more than two years i.e. September 2018 to November 2020, which is reflected from the publications attached with the petition and even if for the sake of arguments it is believed that he was only an article writer, even than he does fall within the definition of "newspaper employee" as prescribed under Section 2 (d) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 as he being editor has remained associated with the publication. Further submits that petitioner remain attached in the magazine and his salary was fixed at Rs. 130,000/- and was being paid Rs. 127,500/- after deduction of tax through cheque and it is also corroborated with the bank statement which is appended with the petition. Whereas, reply of the respondent is evasive and has not given any specific rebuttal to the submissions of the petitioner. Further submits that petitioner has served with the respondent management diligently, honestly and earnestly to the best of his abilities but he is being denied by the respondent management his rightful and lawful remunerations / salary, thus, has prayed for recovery of a lump sum amount of Rs. 930,000/- on account of pending salaries, details of which is reproduced hereunder :- Payable salaries from Nov, 2019 to May, 2020 (Part payment) Rs. 412,000/- Special Reports of Al Event Rs. 20,000/- June, 2020 Rs. 47,500/- July, 2020 Rs. 97,500/- August, 2020 Rs. 127,500/- September, 2020 Rs. 127,500/- October, 2020 Rs. 97 500/- Total Rs, 930,000/-

5. After careful perusal of record I am of the opinion that despite granted of number of opportunities to the respondent establishment, respondent has been failed to rebut contents of the application nor respondent has filed any document in rebuttal along with its written reply, even written reply itself is vague and does not specifically deny contents of the petition nor entitlement of the petitioner. Despite grant of number of opportunities respondent has not submitted any statement of account, to demonstrate that calculation made by the petitioner on account of arrears of salary is incorrect. The petitioner has placed on record copy of newspaper Asian Telegraph as well as the Melange Magazine, which do reflect name of the petitioner as an Editor, which negates the stance of respondent that he was only Story Writer or Article Writer.

6. For the foregoing reasons stated above, petition is allowed as prayed for and petitioner is hereby held entitled to recover Rs.930,000/-. Respondent is directed to pay the above said amount of Rs.930,000/- to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of this ex-parte judgment.

7. Disposed of in the above said terms. File be consigned to record room. MQ/2/ITNE Petition allowed.