PLC 2025

2025 PLP 51 (PLC)

Syed NAEEMUDDIN Versus INCL (JANG GROUP OF COMPANIES), KARACHI

Jurisdiction / Court
Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees
Decided Date
Case No.IT/S/8WBA/150/23/C, decided on 30th January, 2024.
Honorable Judges
Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Chairman
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2025 PLP 51 (PLC)
Forum / Court Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees
Bench Members Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Chairman
Parties Syed NAEEMUDDIN Versus INCL (JANG GROUP OF COMPANIES), KARACHI
Primary Law Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 51 (PLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 51 (PLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees bench comprising: Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, Chairman.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 51 (PLC) (Syed NAEEMUDDIN Versus INCL (JANG GROUP OF COMPANIES), KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act (LVIII of 1973)

Representation

  • Ghulam Mustafa Butt Authorized Representative for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent Management.

Headnotes / Summary

S.2(d)

Petition for recovery of gratuity etc. filed by former Group Director (Project) of newspaper establishment

'Newspaper employee', definition of

Scope

Monetary benefits (gratuity etc.), entitlement to Group Director (Projects) as a newspaper employee

Scope

Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees

Jurisdiction

Plea of the petitioner (who resigned as Group Director (Project) of respondents/ management) was that he had worked with the respondents/ establishment continuously for more than 05 years, thus he was entitled for gratuity for the said period

Validity

It is crystal clear from definition of the 'newspaper employee', as mentioned in S.2(d) of Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, that nomenclature of the petitioner (Group Director Projects)can not be termed as "newspaper employee" as the said category (Group Director ) has nothing to do with printing or publication of newspaper

Nature of job of Group Director (Projects) is all together different from the nature of job of the employees defined in the S. 2(d) of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973

Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner or his nomenclature can be brought within the preview of the newspaper employee

Therefore, the petitioner could not be termed as a 'newspaper employee and thus could not bring any lis before the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees

Legislature in its wisdom has defined both the categories i.e. a whole time journalist and a whole time non-journalist and thus, the categories related with the printing and publication of newspaper are exhaustively defined in the definition of 'newspaper employee 'and the employees working as Group Director (Projects) in any newspaper establishment are not covered under the said scheme of law

Petition , being devoid of merits and not maintainable, was dismissed in limine.

Judgment & Decree

SHAHID MEHMOOD KHOKHAR, CHAIRMAN.

Through instant order, I intend to dispose of above said case, filed by the petitioner through his authorized representative, which has been filed on 14-12-2023. The authorized representative submitted that petitioner was appointed in the respondent management on 03/08/2015 as Group Director (Project). Further submits that petitioner was appointed at a lump sum pay of Rs.605,000/- per month and due to bad attitude of respondent management, petitioner resigned from service on 24/02/2021 by sending an email. The authorized representative further submits that petitioner has worked with the respondent establishment continuously for more than 05 years and after rendering services, petitioner was not paid gratuity for the above said period which comes to Rs. 3,720,750/-. Thus, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to respondent management for payment of gratuity of 05 years 04 months and 21 days amounting to Rs.3,720,750/-. Petitioner has appended with the instant petition his appointment letter dated 01/09/2015 signd by Dr. Ziauddn Ahmed Zia Group Director, Human Resource Development, Mr. Mansoor Rehman, Group Director / Senior Advisor, Finance and Corporate Affairs and Mr. Shahrukh Hasan, Group Managing Director, Jang Group of Companies, certificate dated 08/01/2020, issued by INCL (Pvt.) Limited, email dated 24/02/2021 and special power of attorney to his authorized representative to appear before this Tribunal.

2. Arguments heard and record perused. After careful perusal of the petition and the documents appended therewith, the authorized representative was confronted to satisfy this Tribunal qua the status of petitioner as 'newspaper employee' as provided under Section 2 (d) of the Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1973. For brevity, the said definition is reproduced hereunder :- 2(d) "newspaper employee" means any person employed to do any work in, or in relation to, any newspaper establishment and includes- (i) a whole-time journalist, including an editor, a leader writer, news editor, feature writer, reporter, correspondent, copy tester, cartoonist, news photographer, calligraphist and proof reader; and (ii) a whole-time non-journalist, including a manager, clerk, stenotypist, printing engineer, linotype operator, composer, type-setter, photo studio attendant, printing worker, an accountant and an office peon:

3. In response, the authorized representative submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the respondent management in establishment of INCL (Jang Group of Companies) and has rendered his services for more than 05 years, thus, he is entitled for recovery of gratuity for 05 years service and is entitled for monetary relief of Rs. 3,720,750/-. When repeatedly asked as to how the petitioner does fall within the ambit of Newspaper Employee, as defined in Section 2(d) of Newspaper Employees (Condition Service) Act, 1973, as his nomenclature does not fall in any category of employees mentioned therein, either whole time Journalists or whole time non-journalists, the authorized representative could not answer positively nor could demonstrate any provision of law or could refer any judgment in support of his contentions.

4. By mere perusal of the above said definition of 'newspaper employee', it is crystal clear that Group Director, Projects could not be termed as 'newspaper employee as the above said category of Group Director has nothing to do with printing or publication of newspaper as the nature of job of Group Director, Projects is all together different from the nature of job of the employees defined in the above said Section 2 (d) of the Newspaper Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1973, thus, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner or his nomenclature could be brought within the preview of the above said definition of "newspaper employee". Therefore, the petitioner could not be termed as a 'newspaper employee and thus could not bring any lis before this Tribunal. It would be pertinent to mention here that legislature in its wisdom has defined both the categories i.e. a whole time journalist and a whole time non-journalist and thus, the categories related with the printing and publication of newspaper is exhaustively defined in the definition of "newspaper employee and the employees working as Group Director, Projects in any newspaper establishment are not covered under the above said scheme of law. 5 In view of the above, instant petition being devoid of merits and not maintainable is hereby dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room. MQ/1/ITNE Petition dismisse