APNS lawyer asked to satisfy SC on jurisdiction | Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF)

Pakistan Press Foundation

APNS lawyer asked to satisfy SC on jurisdiction

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court bench seized of a petition challenging Seventh Wage Board Award on March 15, asked the petitioner’s counsel to first satisfy the court on the issue of its jurisdiction and that it was a matter of ‘public importance’ which needed the apex court’s the attention.

Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, head of the three-member SC bench, observed that the court had reservations about the maintainability of the petition, and before going into the merits of the case, the counsel should attempt to satisfy the court that it was maintainable.

The All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) has challenged the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973 in its entirety. But on March 15, it asked the court to limit its applicability to working journalists.

Barrister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, representing the APNS, made a statement before the Supreme Court that its client was willing to implement the award to the extent of journalists. The SC bench consisted of Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Justice Sardar Raza Khan and Justice Falak Sher.

After hearing the APNS lawyer for the whole day, the court adjourned the case to an unspecified date. The bench recommended to Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui that the case should be fixed before the same bench whenever it was convenient. Mr Pirzada was still on his feet when the bench rose.

When hearing started on Monday after a lapse of about two years, the SC bench asked the APNS counsel to first address the court on the question of its jurisdiction, and explain how the petition was maintainable.

The petitioner’s counsel stated that the petition had already been admitted by Justice Munir A. Sheikh through an order passed in his chambers on July 16, 2002.

He said when the petition was filed in the Supreme Court on July 11, 2002, it was returned by the assistant registrar with the objection that it could not be filed directly in the Supreme Court as it did not raise a question of public importance which was a pre-requisite for invoking the apex court’s jurisdiction.

The counsel said when he challenged the order of the assistant registrar, it was heard by Justice Munir A. Sheikh in his chambers, who after setting aside the order of the assistant registrar, directed the office to ‘entertain’ the petition and place it before the bench for ‘hearing.’

Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry asked the counsel to explain if their was any difference between the words ‘entertained’ and ‘maintainable.’ Justice Falak Sher observed that Justice Munir A. Sheikh’s order was that the petition should be placed before the bench to decide whether it was maintainable or not.

Mr Pirzada asked the court to decide the question of maintainability and merit jointly after the full hearing of the case, as was done in the case of Mian Nawaz Sharif when the SC had restored the National Assembly.

The court, however, stated that there were a number of cases in which the apex court first decided the question of maintainability and heard the petition at length after satisfying itself that the matter related to the ‘enforcement of fundamental rights’ and was of ‘public importance’.

The APNS counsel stated that if his petition was not heard by the Supreme Court, hundreds of petitions would be filed in the high courts and the matter would continue to linger on.

He argued that the government, by constituting a wage board to determine the wages of only one category out of many hundreds of private employees in private business was acting in an unconstitutional manner.

He said if the Seventh Wage Board Award was implemented, it would lead to the destruction of the newspaper industry. Some newspapers like The Muslim, Tameer, Zamindar and Kohistan had already been forced to close down because of the burden of wage award, he said.

Governments, the counsel said, used the wage board as an oppressive tool to pressure the press and muffle freedom of expression. The Seventh Wage Board Award was financially unworkable and cannot be implemented and it would be tantamount to expropriation of business and property, the counsel maintained. He said it had put a burden of Rs2,000 million on the newspaper industry, which could not be absorbed.

In this era of de-regularization and privatization, the newspaper industry was being singled out and the wage board chairman, with all the arbitrary powers, was fixing the wages of newspaper industry.

He said chowkidars, naib qasids, and clerks working in the newspaper industry were getting salaries higher by four times than those working in other industries and government departments.

The counsel said the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973, providing for the establishment of the wage board, was contrary to Islamic injunctions which required at least one right of appeal.

Justice Iftikhar observed that SC judgments in the cases of Mian Nawaz Sharif and Ms Benazir Bhutto had no relevance with the APNS case, as those pertained to holding of elections in the country which concerned the whole nation.

Justice Iftikhar observed that there were a number of laws in Pakistan which provided no right of appeal and added that if the apex court admitted the petition on the ground that the newspaper industry was involved, another industry would also invoke the jurisdiction of the SC and the jurisdiction of high courts would be defeated.

Mr Pirzada asked the court not to decide the case on hypothesis and supposition, as the apex court always avoided deciding cases on the basis of hypothesis.

He said the first wage board, which was constituted in 1960, was confined to journalists. In 1973, suddenly the definition of journalists was changed and all newspaper workers were included in the definition of journalists.

Justice Falak Sher observed that at that time there was a PPP government in which the counsel himself was a minister. Mr Pirzada said he was not information minister at the time when the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973 was amended. He said the late Maulana Kausar Niazi was the information minister and added that it was a mistake to change the classification of journalists.
Source: Dawn
Date:3/16/2004