1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.--- The petitioner and so also the respondents Nos.3 to 6 are trade unions of workmen of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC).
2. ' The last referendum for electing Collective Bargaining Agent in KESC was held on 24-2-1999 under Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, now repealed. In the said referendum, the petitioner union was elected and certified as Collective Bargaining Agent for two years commencing from 29-2- 1999 and ending on 23-2-2001. However, before the petitioner union could complete its term, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance (VIII of 1999) was promulgated on 27-5-1999 whereby Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 was made inapplicable to KESC. When the amending Ordinance was about to lapse by efflux of time, another similar Ordinance i,e, Ordinance XVI of 1999 was promulgated on 24-9-1999, giving continuity to the previous amendment.
3. ' On 26-10-2002 Industrial Relations Ordinance of 2002 was promulgated repealing Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. No provision of this new Ordinance excluded its applicability to KESC as was the case under the repealed Ordinance. Thus, with the promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the workmen of KESC became entitled to invoke the provisions of the new Ordinance and elect their Collective Bargaining Agent under section 20 of the new Ordinance.
4. ' After promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, respondent No,4, which is one of the trade unions in KESC, moved an application before National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) seeking election of Collective Bargaining Agent under section 20 of the new Ordinance. However, its application was dismissed by the single Member of NIRC holding that IRO 2002 is not applicable to KESC. The respondent No,4 then challenged this order before this Court in Constitutional Petition No,1301 of 2003 and a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 20-6-2005 held that IRO, 2002 is applicable and gave directions to NIRC to decide respondent No,4's application afresh.
5. ' The petitioner union filed objections to respondent No,4's application before NIRC and claimed that its right to act as Collective Bargaining Agent stood revived under the new Ordinance and that too for a period of three years as envisaged under section 20 of the new Ordinance for the reason that petitioner union was elected Collective Bargaining Agent on 24-2-1999 but could not complete its term on account of two amendments made in the repealed Ordinance on 27-5-1999 and 24-9- 1999 which made the repealed Ordinance inapplicable to KESC. In the alternative it was also the case of the petitioner union, that fresh referendum cannot be held unless list of workers entitled to vote in the referendum is finalized and in this regard petitioner's objection to such list is pending consideration before the Registrar.
6. ' The learned single Member of NIRC vide his decision dated 3-5-2006 dismissed petitioner's objections and directed Deputy Registrar to hold secret ballot for determining the Collective Bargaining Agent under his supervision.
7. ' The petitioner has impugned the decision of the learned single Member of NIRC dated 3-5-2006 in this petition.
8. ' The question which needs to be examined is whether Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 merely revived the right of KESC's workmen to elect their Collective Bargaining Agent or it also revived the right of the petitioner to continue to act as Collective Bargaining Agent in order to complete its unfinished term. In this regard the effect of the amending Ordinances promulgated in 1999 and the effect of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 are to be examined.
9. ' On 27-5-1999 through an amending Ordinance VIII of 1999 section 1(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was amended whereby the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ceased to apply to KESC. The moment this happened, the petitioner also ceased to act as Collective Bargaining Agent. This resulted in premature termination of petitioner's two year term as Collective Bargaining Agent which otherwise would have ended on 23-2-2001. When the first amending Ordinance was about to lapse, another similar amending Ordinance was promulgated on 24-9-1999 giving continuity to the same amendment as contained in the first amendment. Both these Ordinances were then challenged by respondent No,4 i,e, another union of KESC in Constitutional Petition No,1117 of 1999 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 15-2-2000. Then on 26-10-2002, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was repealed on 2-10-2002 by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The provisions of this new Ordinance did not exclude its applicability to KESC as there was no exclusionary provision with regard to KESC in the new Ordinance. Thus, on 26- 10-2002 with the promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the workmen of KESC again became entitled to elect their Collective Bargaining Agent.
10. ' The effect of two identical amendments introduced one after the other on 27-5-1999 and 24-9- 1999 was that not only the right to have a Collective Bargaining Agent in KESC came to an end but the then existing Collective Bargaining Agent in KESC also ceased to exist. The amendments did not suspend the then CBA but for all practical purposes they put an end to the then Collective Bargaining Agent. It, therefore, became non est.
11. ' The promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 on 26-10-2002 gave birth to a right which was similar to the right enjoyed by the workmen of KESC under the repealed Ordinance prior to the amendments made in 1999. This re-emergence of the right does not have the effect of automatically reviving the defunct Collective Bargaining Agent certified under the repealed Ordinance. This would have been so had the office of the Collective Bargaining Agent been merely suspended under the repealed law and then suspension was later withdrawn. In the present case the Collective Bargaining Agent certified under the repealed Ordinance ceased to exist with the introduction of two successive amendments made in 1999 as they altogether took out KESC from the ambit of Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The effect of promulgation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 is that with its promulgation the workmen of KESC became entitled to eleet a Collective Bargaining Agent afresh. The unions of KESC now have to contest for seeking certification as Collective Bargaining Agent. The question of revival or defunct Collective Bargaining Agent certified under the repealed- Ordinance does not arise at all as neither such revival is envisaged under the present Ordinance nor upon its promulgation petitioner union was acting as Collective Bargaining Agent.
12. ' We are, therefore, of the view that with the revival of the right to have Collective Bargaining Agent in KESC under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the petitioner's certification as the Collective Bargaining Agent under the repealed Ordinance did not automatically stood revived, moreso when upon promulgation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the petitioner union was not even functioning as Collective Bargaining Agent and had ceased to exist way back in 1999. Therefore, the learned single Member of NIRC rightly directed the Registrar to hold ballot for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent.
13. ' On 16-1-2007 we dismissed this petition in limine by passing short order. The above are the reasons for the same.