WAJID ALI vs DAILY JANG, LAHORE S — 2025 PLC 58 IMPLEMENTATION-TRIBUNAL-FOR-NEWSPAPER-EMPLOYEE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

WAJID ALI VS DAILY JANG, LAHORE S.13---Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012), S.2(xxxiii)---Persons employed by contractors of a company, grievance of ---Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees---Jurisdiction---"Worker" and "Workman"---"Employed by the company"---Scope---Words "employed by the company " are wide enough to include workmen employed by the contractors of the company---Employees of the contractor shall be the employees of the company, if the contractor engaged the workers for running of the affairs of the company and not for some other independent work, which has no concern with the production of the company, which constituted one of the principal organs of the company; the machines belong to the company; the raw material is supplied by the company; and the said department is controlled by the supervisors of the company; the employees of the contractor shall be the employees of the company; the employees engaged directly or through a contractor would be deemed to be the employees of the company for whose benefits they perform functions---Even though control test is an important test, it is not the sole test; a multiple pragmatic approach weighing up all the factors for and against the employment has to be adopted, including an "integration" test; and if the contract is found to be not genuine and a device to deprive the employees from their legitimate rights / benefits, the so-called contract employees will have to be treated as employees of the company---Such employees would not be estopped to file a grievance petition---Pertinently, it has become a practice on part of the employers to frustrate not only the provisions of prevalent law but also to deny the fundamental rights of life, trade, service and family of employees by adopting deceptive measures in order to deprive its employees from their legitimate rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, and outsourcing of service is just an example---Courts cannot close their eyes but can lift corporate veil for purposes of ascertaining real motive behind a scheme---Correct approach for sanctioning of a scheme is that the same should not be scrutinized in the way of a carping critic, a hairsplitting expert, a meticulous accountant or a fastidious counsel, each trying to find out from his professional point of view what loopholes are present in such a scheme---Petitioner produced documents like original bank statement, issued by concerned Bank showing that salary of the petitioner was credited by the respondent / establishment from various accounts reflecting that he was working in the establishment of respondent / establishment and was rendering services to the respondent / establishment in its premises---In said regard, relationship of petitioner and respondent (establishment/ organization) was established in the light of the definition of "worker" and "workman" as prescribed under S. 2(xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which is applicable to Newspaper Employees---Thus, Respondent / establishment could not be allowed to wriggle out from discharge of its liability under the law---Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees held the petitioner entitled to gratuity @ Rs.15,000 x 6 = Rs. 90,000/- as his last pay drawn was Rs. 15,000/- per month---Respondent was directed to pay Rs. 90,000/- as gratuity within thirty days---Petition , filed by former newspaper employee was allowed accordingly.

WAJID ALI vs DAILY JANG, LAHORE S — 2025 PLC 58 IMPLEMENTATION-TRIBUNAL-FOR-NEWSPAPER-EMPLOYEE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC