' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J---I.C.A. No,144 of 2003, involving the identical legal issue is also being decided through this judgment.
2. Intra-Court Appeal No,866 of 2002 by the Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA) Employees Welfare Union, a Trade Union, is directed against the order dated 26-11-2002, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby Writ Petition No,20637 of 2002, instituted by the petitioner, was dismissed in limine.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Attorney-General, learned Advocate-General and learned counsel for contesting respondent No,2/CBA. There is a request for an adjournment on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant in the connected I.C.A. No,144 of 2003. We are not inclined to grant the request as we have heard full dress arguments in this appeal.
4. The relevant facts in brief are that in the referendum held on 26-10-2000, respondent No,2 was declared as Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) and a certificate to this effect was issued on 31-10- 2000 with effect from 27-10-2000. Subsection (10) of section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provided that no application for determination of the CBA was to be entertained within a period of two years from the date of certification except where the registration of such trade union was cancelled before the expiration of that period. According to the appellant, the aforesaid period of two years of respondent No,2 as CBA expired on 26-10-2002 and the appellant, therefore, competently moved an application on 28-10-2002 before respondent No,1 /the Registrar of Trade Unions, for the determination of a new CBA, which was dismissed on 20-11-2002, on the ground that in the meanwhile, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, had been repealed and replaced by Industrial Relations Ordinance (No,XCI), 2002 and under subsection (11) of section 20 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the period stood extended from two years to three years. The appellant assailed the order of the Registrar through the aforesaid writ petition, which, as mentioned above, was dismissed on 26-11-2002.
5. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, was promulgated on 26-10-2002 by the President of Pakistan. The contention that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, having not been placed before the National Assembly, within four months of its promulgation, stands repealed/lapsed under Article 89 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has no force because Article 270- AA of the Constitution (a new Article) inserted in the Constitution by the Legal Framework Order, 2002 (Chief Executive's Order No,24 of 2002) provides that all laws made between 12-10-1999 and the date on which the aforesaid Article came into force, stand affirmed/adopted etc. And declared to have been made by competent authority notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution. Article 270-AA was inserted in the Constitution on 21-8-2002 but Came into force on 16-11-2002, vide S.R.O.- 799(I) of 2002, dated 15-11-2002, issued by the Chief Executive of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, published in The Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary on 16-11-2002. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, having been promulgated on 26-10-2002, thus, stands saved under sub-Article (1) of Article 270-AA of the Constitution.
6. Subsection (1 1) of section 20 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, provides that no application for determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent shall be entertained within a period of three years from the date of such certification and on this basis, the application of the appellant for the determination of the CBA after the expiry of period of two years, as provided in Repealed Law (Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was dismissed by respondent No,
1. This provision has to be read alongwith section 80 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. Subsection (1) of section 80 of the aforesaid Ordinance provides that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, stands repealed. Sub- section (2) of section 80 provides that notwithstanding the repeal of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and without prejudice to the provisions of sections 6 and 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897), "(a) every trade union existing immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, which was registered under the repealed Ordinance shall be deemed to be registered under this Ordinance and its constitution shall continue in force untill altered or redescribed,
(a) anything done, rules made, notification or order issued, officer appointed, Court constituted, notice given, proceedings commenced or other actions taken under the repealed Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, constituted, given, commenced or taken, as the case may be, under the corresponding provisions of this Ordinance."
Clause (a) of section 80(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, reproduced above, deals only with the registration of trade unions and not the certification of CBA's and, therefore, argument from the respondents' side that the CBA shall be deemed to have been formed under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, because of the aforesaid clause (a) of section 80(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, has no force. However, clause (b) of section 80(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, reproduced above, provides that all actions taken including the orders issued under repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, shall be deemed to have been taken and issued etc., under the corresponding provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. We- are of the view that the interpretation of clause (b) of section 80(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, is most important and relevant for the resolution of the issue in hand.
7. A bare reading of aforesaid clause (b) of section 80(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 shows that all orders passed and actions taken under the repealed Ordinance shall be deemed to have been passed, commenced and taken under the provisions of present. Ordinance of 2002. The order of certification of respondent No,2, as CBA, shall, therefore, be deemed to have been passed under the present, Ordinance of 2002 and subsection (11) of section 20 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, provides that no application for determination of the Collective Bargaining Agent shall be entertained within a period of three years from the date of such certification. It is, thus, manifest that the prohibitory period, under the present law, stands extended from two years to three years and the appellant could not have validly moved an application for the determination of a new CBA before the expiration of the period of three years of the certification of respondent No,2 as the CBA. The argument of the appellant's counsel that the legislative provisions are not to be read as retrospective in nature, is also of no avail to the appellant, in the present case, because the law itself discloses a different intention, as is clear from the wording of clause (b) of section 80(2), discussed above. It may further be mentioned here that the appellant moved the application for the determination of the CBA on 28-10-2002, when the present Ordinance No,XCI of 2002 had already come into existence with effect from 26-10-2002 and the appellant could invoke the remedy for the determination of the new CBA, only under the present Ordinance, which restrained the appellant from moving an application for the determination of a new CBA within a period of three years from the date of certification of the CBA, as provided in subsection (11) of section 20 of the aforesaid Ordinance.
8. We have taken note of the fact that under subsection (2) of section 80 of the present Ordinance, the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897) have been saved. We are, however, of the view that the aforesaid provision of the General Clauses Act, 1897, has been saved only to the extent it is not repugnant or inconsistent with the express provisions of the present Ordinance. Aforesaid section 6 itself contemplates that its provisions will not apply if the repealing Act provides different-intention.
9. We have considered the order dated 6-5-2003 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No,1796 of 2003 (Multan Bench) and with utmost respect, we are unable to agree with the views expressed therein for the reasons recorded above.
10. In view of the above mentioned, we find no merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.