|
|
|
| June 28, 2006 | Wednesday | Jumadi-ul-Sani 1, 1427 |
ITNE dismisses plea challenging maintainability of suo motu proceedings
ISLAMABAD, June 27: Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (ITNE) Chairman Judge Tanvir Bashir Ansari on Tuesday asked the management of Dawn to submit its declaration within 15 days, failing which action may be taken as warranted by the law.
The judge also dismissed through a separate order the application of Dawn management challenging the maintainability of the suo motu proceedings against the non-implementation of 7th wage board award in the newspaper establishment.
Mohammad Afzal Siddiqi, represented the respondent Dawn Islamabad, while Sadiq Mohammad Warraich was the counsel for Dawn employees.
Dawn management had challenged the maintainability of the proceedings on the grounds that the 7th wage board award had not achieved legal status as all members, who constituted the wage board had not signed it; that in the instant proceedings, which are criminal in nature, the respondent cannot be called upon to submit the declaration and that no criminal proceedings could be initiated suo motu.
Dawn management’s application further claimed that there was no individual or collective grievance before the tribunal and any proceedings initiated on its own were not competent and that the 7th wage board award had become ineffective after lapse of two years of its enforcement as per analogy of an award of full bench of the NIRC.
The counsel for respondent finally sought stay of the proceedings as vires of NECOSA, 1973, as well as the 7th wage board award was under challenge before the Sindh High Court.
However, the ITNE chairman refused to stay the proceedings saying: “It is trite law that pendency of writ petition challenging the vires of a legislation or an order, decision or award under it would not ipso facto affect the pendency proceedings.”
Mr Ansari noted that a similar application filed by the respondent was dismissed on May 24, 2006 and the instant application of June 6, 2006 mentioned the same objections although differently worded.—PR
|
|
|
|
