' Through instant judgment, we propose to decide C.P. No,1795 of 2007 filed by the petitioners claiming to be workmen in the establishment of respondent No,3 i.e, K.E.S.C., seeking directions against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to hold referendum for C.B.A. In K.E.S.C. Forthwith, further declaration that delay in-holding referendum in K.E.S.C. Is violative of fundamental rights of its workers and further directions to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to resolve issue of registration of contract workers within shortest time and not beyond 15 days.
2. In C.P. No,1268 of 2008, the K.E.S.C. Has impugned the orders dated 7-2-2007 passed by respondent No,2 (RITU) and order, dated 15-12-2008 passed by the Full Bench of NIRC in terms of section 52 of I.R.O.
2002. It is further prayed:---
(a) Contract employees irrespective of their length of service are not eligible to participate in any secret ballot for determination of C.B.A.
(b) That the status of the contract employees could not in any case to be determined without recording evidence before RITU.
(c) That RITU as a judicial functionary could not be expected to delegate its functions to a non- judicial officer Deputy Registrar of NIRC and observation and finding made by RITU based on such finding are of no legal effect.
(d) That the principle well-settled by Supreme Court of Pakistan and High Court especially in context of Karachi Electric Supply Company having been ignored and by not taken into consideration muchless discussed were binding on sub-Courts and any finding given by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 contrary to the settled principles of law is of no legal effect.
(e) That before determining through C.B.A. RITU is first expecting in person to determine the issue pertaining to disputed members through an enquiry to be conducted by him in person and not by any other authority.
(0 That this Honourable Court may' be pleased to set aside the two impugned orders and direct RITU to conduct an enquiry all over again in person and thereafter come to the conclusion as regards participation of the contract employees in the proposed secret ballot.
(g) To grant such further and/or appropriate relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit under the circumstances.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy in issue, facts as may be necessary, are recapitulated as follows:---
4. Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 in C.P. 1795 of 2007 claim to be working since over thirty years in K.E.S.C. On 4-2-2003 K.E.S.C. Labour Union, applied to the Registrar ITU to hold the referendum to determine C.B.A. In the K.E.S.C. The application was rejected vide order, dated 26-8-2003 on the ground inter alia; that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (I.R.O. 2002). Is not applicable on K.E.S.C. The order was successfully impugned before a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No,D-1301 of 2003 reported as K.E.S.C. Labour Union and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2006 PLC 186. Learned Division Bench directed the RITU to treat the application of the. Labour Union seeking to hold referendum as pending and decide the same within a reasonable time and preferably not beyond 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. However, despite opposition by the respondent No,7, the application for holding referendum was accepted vide order, dated 3-5-2006 and respondent No,2 the Deputy Registrar, NIRC was directed to hold secret ballot for the determination of the C.B.A.
Under his supervision in a transparent manner by associating all the parties. '
5. All the labour/worker unions and the K.E.S.C. Were taken on board by the Deputy Registrar, NIRC and vide order, dated 31-10-2006 fixed the date to hold referendum on 25-11-2006. Final voters list was prepared and schedule and polling booths were announced.
6. It appears that C.P. No,2140 of 2006 was sponsored to interrupt the referendutri failed, and was dismissed by a Division Bench on 16-1-2007.
7. The respondent No,1 the learned Chairman, NIRC vide order, dated 18-11-2006 directed the Deputy Registrar, NIRC not to hold referendum and further to decide the status of contract employees. The issue of contract employees was resolved vide order, dated 19-12-2007. It was held that the contract employees/workers who are members of any union are entitled to be enlisted in the voters list, referendum was directed to be held as expeditiously as possible by the Authorized Officer.
8. However, the referendum has not been held on the pretext that matter of registration of union of contract worker is pending registration.
9. Grievance of the petitioners in the first mentioned petition is that Referendum has not been held since over 10 years and workers and employees are being deprived of their fundamental right to franchise as guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan.
10. Above, is half of the story that was highlighted in C.P. No,1795 of 2007, other half of the story is recounted in C.P. No,1268 of 2008. K.E.S.C., the petitioner, therein, appealed against the order, dated 19-12-2007 under section 52 of the I.R.O. 2002, before the Full Bench of the NIRC, on the ground inter alia that Referendum proceedings were initiated by a union that was not registered and secondly the impugned judgment was rendered without recording evidence and giving finding as to length of service of contract employees. In subject petition, judgment, dated 19-12-2006 passed by learned RITU and Order of the learned Full Bench of the NIRC, dated 15-5-2008 have been impugned.
11. Attending to the first objection of the learned counsel for the K.E.S.C. In C.P. No,1795 of 2007 that the petition is not maintainable, as the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 were neither aggrieved persons nor workman. Mr. Ghani, maintained that petitioner No,1 was Office Superintendent and during pendency of the petition he retired. Petitioner No,2 was working as a Foreman, GSM Department and as per PLC 1971 (LC) 8(sic), he does not qualify to be a workman. As regard the petitioner No,3, it was stated that he being Chief Inspector, he does not meet the criteria of a workman.
12. It was urged that Petitioner No,4 i.e, K.E.S.C. Labour Union, joined later under the orders of this Court, dated 24th October, 2008 is of no avail. According to him when the petition at the inception was incompetent, joinder of any party will not resurrect or give life to a dead petition. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on the case of Yousuf Ali v. Fazal Muhammad 1970 SCM R 681, in the cited case it appears that the petitioner declined to be joined in a petition arising out of orders passed by Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner between two claimants. It was observed by the apex Court that since he was not privy to the dispute before the Settlement Authority; therefore, High Court rightly declined his prayer to be joined as a party. He vehemently urged that jumping the vessel will not rescue the petition that is bound to sink.
13. Mr. Paracha, for the petitioner, in C.P. D-1795 of 2007, vehemently controverted the contentions of Mr. Ghani. It was argued that the respondent K. E. S.C., denied that the petitioners are in its service through out. It was only when one of the petitioners retired it was acknowledged that such petitioner, has since retired, therefore, the petition is rendered not maintainable. It was, without prejudice, contended that at the motion of K.E.S.C. Labour Union, it was added as respondent No,4 vide order, dated 24-10-2007, therefore, the objection as to locus standi of the original petitioners will not render the petition as infructuous.
14. Petitioner No,4 union _admittedly has a representative status in the K.E.S.C. Establishment, therefore, objection of Mr. Ghani, that petition filed by person not workman and thus has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, has lost the charm. Petitioner No,4 was added as/petitioner when the vessel was afloat. If at all, contention of Mr. Ghani is taken on its face value, then also it is not denied that petitioner No,4, having representative capacity, locus standi is not questionable, petition to seek enforcement of right to franchise and for determination of C.B.A. Is fundamental right, guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 by the respondent No,4 is available. Where even one of the petitioners has locus standi, the petition cannot be dismissed merely because some of the parties are not entitled to the relief on technical grounds.
15. Core controversy in instant petition hinges on determination as to status of contract employees and whether they are eligible to right of franchise or not. The issue was decided by the RITU vide order, dated 19-12-2007, and was upheld in appeal by the Full Bench of NIRC vide order, dated 15-5- 2008 both, impugned by the K.E.S.C. In C.P. No,1268 of 2008.
16. Through impugned orders, dispute with regard to status of contract employees/workers with regard to their entitlement to exercise right to franchise was settled. The RITU after hearing the parties through a reasoned order concluded:--- "For the aforesaid reasons I have no doubt in my mind that the -contract employees/workers whose services are hired either directly or through a contractor by the Management and performing continuous and permanent nature of work and are also members of any contesting trade unions, are entitled to be enlisted in the voters list. I direct the Authoriied officer to include the names of all these employees/workers who are members of any contesting trade union and hold the referendum expeditiously as possible."
17. Full Bench of the NIRC upheld the order with further clarity vide impugned order, dated 15-5- 2008 which reads as follows:--- "For what has been discussed above we hold that no prejudice to either side has been caused by not recording evidence before pronouncement of judgment impugned. The objection With regard to the eligibility of a worker can still be agitated before the learned Authorized Officer as and when he asks for the list of workmen from the unions as, well as the establishment. It will however, not be open to any side to question the eligibility of a contract worker, if he is appointed against a permanent post and performing the job for more than three months."
' Mr, Mahmood A. Ghani, learned counsel for the K.E.S.C. Contended that he has no objection, if the referendum is held to determine C.B.A., however, the exercise could only be carried out by the Registrar alone as provided for under section 20(3) and (4) of the I.R.O., 2002, such powers are judicial and therefore, cannot be delegated to any other functionary, as was done in the instant matter. To support his contentions he placed reliance on unreported judgment in H.C.A. 208 of 1998 Ghandhara Nissan Ltd. v. RITU passed by a Division Bench of this Court and one of us as its member (namely Mushir Alam, J). Learned D.A.-G. Mr. Ashraf supported Mr. Ghani on such score.
18. Mr. Paracha, appearing for the petitioners and so also Mr. Rizvi and Chaudhry Ashraf appearing for other respondents controverted the contentions, it was urged that subsection (14) of section 20 empowered the Registrar to delegate such powers to other office-bearer therefore, no exception could be taken to such exercise of authority by the delegatee of the authority.
19. In order to appreciate the contentions subsection (14) of section 20 of I.R.O. 2002 may be examined which runs as follows:---
(14) The Registrar may authorize in writing an office-bearer to perform all or any of his functions under this Ordinance and the rules made thereunder. (underlined to add emphasis)
20. Subsection (14) (ibid), clearly empowers the Registrar to delegate his authority to an office- bearer, to perform all or any of his functions under the Ordinance and the rules made thereunder.
Only requirement of the delegation is that such delegation of the authority must be in writing and to an office-bearer.
21. In the instant case, the application of the "K.E.S.C. Labour Union" to hold election was dismissed by the RITU on 26-8-2006, which order was successfully impugned in this Court reported in 2005 PLC 466. On the direction of this Court application of the Union was heard and accepted vide order, dated 3-5-2006 with "direction that Mr. Ghulam Nabi Deeshak, Deputy Registrar would hold secret ballot for determination of C.B.A. Under the supervision in a transparent manner by associating, all parties".
22. We have also examined the unreported judgment in Ghandhara Nissan Ltd. v. RITU (supra).
Issue in said case inter alia pertained to registration of trade union, and the manner in which objections of the employer pre-registration and post-registration of the trade union are to be treated was in issue. We have gone through entire judgment nowhere it was held that the Registrar could not delegate his functions to other functionaries as canvassed by Mr. Ghani. In para.21 of the judgment, while rendering opinion it was observed by the Bench "The Registrar, being statutory functionary under the provisions of I.R.O., is obliged to perform his duties in accordance with law".
Said observation cannot be said to abridge the authority of the Registrar to delegate its function as provided for under subsection (14) of section 20 of I.R.O.
2002. Even if it had been so, then too any observation in a judgment will not override the provision of a statute. It was not expected from any counsel, what to speak of counsel of high stature to mislead the Court.
23. Reliance of Mr. Mahmood Ghani on All Pakistan Seamen's Worker Union v. Pakistan Seamen's Union 2007 SCM R 1380, is of no avail. In cited case the Court examined provisions of sections 22- A(4), (8)(d) and 22(b) of the repealed I.R.O., 1969, where under the Chairman of the Commission delegated the function to the Deputy Registrar, which exercise of power was not approved by the High Court, and it was held that power of the Commission to be exercised by the Chairman or the Bench could not be legally delegated to or entrusted to an officer of the Commission and rightly so as, such power was vested in the Commission could not be delegated to an officer of the Commission or the Registrar of the Commission and the view of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. In the instant case as noted above the Registrar of the Trade Unions under section 20 of I.R.O., 2002 is clothed with authority to certify C.B.A., for an Establishment, in the manner provided for under section 20 of the I.R.O., 2002, which is self-contained provision and elaborately deals with the manner Registrar has to act and perform his functions right from receiving application for the certification of C.B.A., inviting and issuance of notices to the trade unions desiring to contest election, calling from the trade unions list of its members with all requisite detail, affiliate trade unions etc. As provided for in subsection (3) (ibid) and likewise power to direct employers to furnish details of employees/workers in the establishment to facilitate verification of the such list furnished both, by the trade union and the employer, prepare the list of eligible voters, hold secret ballot and certify the trade union securing highest number of votes as C.B.A. All or any of the array of functions and tasks as elaborated in subsections (1) to (13) of section 20 could be performed by the Registrar himself and by virtue authority to delegate, as bestow unto him, by virtue of subsection (14) thereof to a designated person same could be performed by the person so designated in writing. It may be observed that in corresponding provision of section 20(13), I.R.O., 1969 the predecessor enactment, Registrar enjoyed authority to delegate as is provided in subsection (14) of section 24 of I.R.A., 2008, only curtailment or limitation in subsection (14) of section 24 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 is that the authority to delegate is restricted and or curtailed to the extent of "all or any function under this section" unlike unlimited authority to delegate "all or any of his functions under the Ordinance and the rules made thereunder" was conceded under section 20(14) of I.R.O., 2002.
24. Controversy as to authority of the Registrar to delegate function to determine Collective Bargaining Agent also came up for consideration of a learned Division Bench of Balochistan High Court in the case of United Bank Progressive Employees Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions 1986 CLC 2911, while examining corresponding provision of section 22(13) of I.R.O., 1969, in para.9 at page 2915 it was concluded by the learned Bench as follows:- "The Registrar has the power under section 13 of the Ordinance to determine a collective bargaining agent of an establishment whereas under section 22 the procedure has been prescribed for such determination and subsection (13) thereof empowers the Registrar to delegate his functions of such determination to any officer. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that the Registrar could competently delegate his power to any other officer to determine the Collective Bargaining Agent, out of two rival unions."
25. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, learned counsel for the K.E.S.C attempted to draw distinction between judicial functions and non-judicial functions of the Registrar. According to him preparation and verification of voters list is judicial function, which a Registrar is required to perform personally under section 24(5) of I.R.A., 2008.
26. According to Mr. Ghani, Registrar cannot delegate this power of verification and preparation of voters list to any other functionary. Arguments are fallacious. Registrar,' in the matter of certifying C..B.A. Could either himself perform all or any functions enumerated in section 20 of I.R.O., 2002 or delegate his function in view of the authority conferred on him under section 20(14) therefore, similar authority is concede in successor I.R.A.
2008.
27. Subsection (14) of section 20 of I.R.O., 2002 or for that matter section 20(14) of I.R.A. 2008 do not draw any distinction or lays down any limitation except. In earlier enactment Registrar could delegate all or any function under the Ordinance and the rules made thereunder" whereas in the later Act, such delegation was limited to "all or any function under this section", as identified above.
28; Section 20(14) (ibid) does not draw distinction between judicial or administrative/non-judicial function, when law does not draw any distinction or prescribe any limitation, same cannot be inferred or imposed. The authority of the Registrar to delegate its functions as D contained in section 20(14) of I.R.O. 2002 or for that matter in section 24(14) of I.R.A. 2008 is unbridle and unequivocal, no exception in exercise of such authority could be taken nor any limitation could be imposed.
29: In the case of United Bank Progressive Employees. Union v. Kcgistrar of Trade Unions 1986 CLC 2911, also attempt was made to distinguish ,between power and functions, required to be performed by the Registrar. Court while repealing such distinction held at page 2916 "We are, therefore, unable to go along with the learned counsel for the petitioner in interpretation of the word "power" and "function". These two terms are not only synonymous to each other but also compliment and supplement each other. An officer can only function if he has power in that regard. The Registrar could, therefore, validly delegate his power to any other officer and could also authorize him to function as Registrar for the purpose of section 22 of the Ordinance".
30. It was no body's case that the Registrar delegated' what was not vested in him or that the delegatee exceeded the authority that was lawfully conferred. Where the law confers authority to delegate, such iv authority cannot be curtailed, curbed or impeded, therefore, impugned I-orders dated 19-12-2006 passed by Chairman/RITU and order, dated 5-5-2008 passed by the Full Bench of NIRC call for no interference.
31. Adverting to other aspect of the matter as urged "whether contract employees irrespective of their length of service are not eligible to participate in any secret ballot" is concerned, it was vehemently argued by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, that K.E.S.C. Employs workman on case, to case basis on temporary assignment and the moment contract expires they are no more in employment of K.E.S.C., therefore, no right of franchise could be given to such temporary workers.
32. Right to form and establish association and union is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, however, subject to reasonable restrictions. Imposed by law in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order or morality. Right to form trade union and right to franchise available to the employee and workman is being regulated under the industrial relation enactments right from I.R.O., 1969, I.R.O., 2002 and now in I.R.A. 2008, all three successive legislations acknowledge and recognize that a "worker without distinction whatsoever has right to form" and subject to Constitution or rules of the "trade union, join any trade union of their choice" within the establishment or industry they are employed in. Right to franchise is fundamental right, guaranteed under the Constitution, 1973, it cannot be impinched or denied on any count, such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan, public order or morality. (One may refer to illustrative Full Bench judgment in the case of Civil Aviation Authority v. Union of Civil Aviation Employees PLD 1997 SC 781).
33. There has been much debate whether contract workman/ employee enjoys such right to franchise or not. To appreciate such contention, to appreciate such aspect one may revert to the definition of workman as given in I.R.O., 2002, which reads as follows:--- 2(xxx) "worker" and "workman" means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or' reward either directly or through a contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial . Dispute includes' a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed the mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity."
34: Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 reads as follows:--- "20. Collective Bargain Agent.--- (1) ................................................
(2) ...........................................................................................................................
(3) Upon receipt of an application under subsection (2) the Registrar shall, by notice in writing, call upon every registered trade union in the establishment or group of establishments to which the application relates:--
(a) to indicate whether it desires to be a contestant in the secret ballot to be held for determining the collective bargaining agent in relation to such establishment or group of establishments, as the case may be; and
(b) to submit to him within the time specified in the notice a list of its members showing, in respect of each member, his parentage, age, the section of department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his becoming a member and if the trade union is a federation of trade unions, a list of its affiliated trade unions together with a list of members of each such trade union showing in respect of each such member the said particulars.
(4) Every employer shall- . (a) on being so required by the Registrar, within fifteen days, submit a list of all workmen employed in the establishment excluding those whose period of employment in the establishment is less than three months and showing, in respect of each workman, his parentage, age, the section or department and the place in which he is employed, his ticket number and the date of his employment in the establishment. However, a separate list of workmen whose period of employment is less than three months showing the said particulars in respect of each workman may also be submitted; and
(b) provide such facilities for verification of the list submitted by him and the trade unions as the Registrar may require: Provided that in computing the period of three months referred to in clause (a), in the case of a workman employed in a seasonal factory within the meaning of section 4 of the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), the period during which he was employed in that factory during the preceding season shall also be taken into account.
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10) .......................................................................................................................
(11) .........................................
(12) ......................................................................
(13) .......................................................................................................................
(14) .......................................................................................................................
35. On reading definition of workman (section 2(xxx) of the I.R.O., 2002) read with section 20(4)
(ibid) it can irresistibly deduced that all persons not falling within the definition of employer and who are employed in an establishment or, industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, without distinction whatsoever have a right to form and join any trade union. However, right to vote is not conferred on a workman employed in the establishment whose period of employment in the establishment is less than three months. Nevertheless, the employer is obliged to forward to the Registrar or his delegatee list of all such workers. Under I.R.A., 2008 Registrar is not required to call list of workers whose period of employment is less than three months, whereas it was required under I.R.O.
2002.
36. The list required to be prepared by the Registrar or his delegate in terms of section 20(5) of I.R.O., 2002 is the list of eligible voter workmen, who have completed three months of service and who are members of any trade union running for election of C.B.A.
37. The distinction between contractual worker and or otherwise is no more available. Now workman without discrimination of any classification can form a union likewise workers of all classifications have a right to franchise, provided they have minimum three months service to their credit. I.R.O., 2002 or for that matter the predecessor law (I.R.O., 1969) on the subject nor, the successor enactment (I.R.A., 2008) draws any distinction between employee/workman employed directly and or through contractor, only limitation that can be read is that the workman must be member of a contesting trade union and have completed three months before he could be enlisted as an eligible voter. It, therefore, follows, that a workman/employee who is member of contesting trade union, without any discrimination as to classification whatsoever, who has completed three months of service may cast their vote to elect C.B.A.
38. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, proceeded to oppose the Petition 1795 of 2007 on another plane, according to him, election under section 24(2), I.R.A., 2008, could only be held upon application of 1/5th of the total number of workmen employed in the K.E.S.C., whereas it is not so. According to him, if such application is of 1/5th of the total number of workmen it may be considered. According to him since I.R.O., 2002 has been repealed and now elections are to be held under I.R.A. 2008, which sets down such requirement, referendum if at all, is to be held under new regime:
39. Mr. Paracha, Mr. Razvi and Chaudhry Ashraf, Advocates, with all vehemence controverted the contentions. It was contended that repealing provision contained in section 87 of I.R.A. 2008 has saved anything done under the repealed Ordinance, 2002, according to them. Directions given to hold election, were made under the late Ordinance, 2002 are protected, therefore, petitioners may not be deprived of right to fundamental franchise, that is being denied for almost a decade.
40. In order to appreciate last limb of the arguments of Mr. Ghani, it will be appropriate to examine repealing and saving provisions contained in section 87 of I.R.A. 2008, which reads as follows:--- "Section 87 Repeal and saving.--- (1) The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002), is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (XCI of 2002, hereinafter to be called repealed Ordinance, 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 Act, which was registered under the repealed Ordinance shall be deemed to be registered under this Act and its constitution shall continue in force until altered or rescinded;
(b) 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 Act; and
(c) any document referring to the repealed Ordinance relating to industrial relations shall be construed as referring to the corresponding provisions of this Act.
(3) This Act shall, unless repealed earlier, stand repealed on 30th April, 2010.
41. On reading above, it is clear that every trade union existing immediately before the commencement of this Act, which was registered under the repealed Ordinance shall be deemed to be registered under this Act.' Repealing provisions have also preserved and protected anything done, rules made, notification or order issued, officer appointed, Court constituted, notice given, proceedings commenced or other actions taken under the repealed Ordinance. All such action deeds and acts are deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, constituted, given, commenced or taken, as the case may be, under the' corresponding provisions of this Act.
Therefore, contentions of Mr. Ghani, are misconceived and not tenable. The elections for the C.B.A.
Were directed to be held vide impugned order, dated 19-12-2006 and as maintained by the Full Bench of the NIRC dated 15-5-2008, therefore, let the election be held in terms of the directions contained therein as per provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002.
42. Instant cases, are one of those unfortunate cases where the workmen/employees of, an establishment are deprived of their right of franchise as guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, by an establishment for almost 10 years last elections were held in 1999. It may be observed that obedience to Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of every citizen, wherever he may be and of every person for the time being within Pakistan and the K.E.S.C. Cannot claim any exception.
43. In view of the foregoing we allow the C.P. No,D-1795 of 2007 with cost throughout and direct the Authorized Officer, to hold the referendum in the respondent No,1 K.E.S.C. Establishment within as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the copy-of this order. Dismiss the C.P. No,1268 of 200& with cost throughout.
44. Since the respondent No,1 K.E.S.C. In C.P. 1795 of 2007 and petitioner in C.P. No,1268 of 2008, unjustly denied and deprived its workmen to exercise their fundamental right to franchise as guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan, f973 read with section 20 of I.R.O., 2002, while allowing C.P. No,1795 of 2007 and dismissing C.P. 1268 of 2008 with cost throughout we impose cost of Rs,10,000 per year from the date of last referendum till to date the cost will be deposited in the K.E.S.C. Employees worker welfare fund within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. a .