' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- With this judgment we shall decide above titled appeals. The appellants in above mentioned appeals were/are employees of United Bank Limited, hereinafter called respondent-Bank. Appellant Umeed Ali was compulsorily retired from service. The services of appellants Muhammad Siddique, Shahid Tanveer, Muhammad Iqbal, Aslam Mumtaz, Nasir Ahmed, Zubair Faiz Butt, Shaukat Ali, Abdul Shakoor, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry, Muhammad Rafique, Rana Anwarul Hach Hamid Mukhtar, Abdul Shakoor, Afzal Mehmood Rana, Javed Iqbal and Arshad Rasheed were terminated. Appellants Qaiser Mansoor, Khawar Mahmood, Malik Ghulam Hussain, Mian Qamar Zaman, Muhammad Hussain Chaudhry and Muhammad Saleem Khan were dismissed from service. Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry appellant has appealed against his premature retirement. Appellant Agha Kamran Zaman has claimed back benefits through his appeal. Appellant Ehsan Ahmed seeks move-over. Appellants in Appeals Nos.366(L)(C.E.) of 2001 to 391(L)(C.E.) of 2001, 2061(L) of 1998, 313(L)(C.E.) of 2001 to 317(L)(C.E.) of 2001 have prayed for grant of retrenchment benefits. Appeals Nos. 180(L)(C.E) of 2000 and 1528(L) of 1998 have been filed by the Bank against the judgment of Punjab Labour Court by which relief had been granted to Tasawar Hussain and Mujahid Hussain.
2. The respondent-Bank has resisted all the above mentioned appeals except the two appeals Nos.180(L)(C.E.) of 2000 and 1528(L) of 1998 filed by it. For these two appeals it is submitted that the Punjab Labour Court had given the decision against law and facts. Tasawar Hussain and Mujahid Hussain respondents were also in service of the Bank before its privatization. All the present appeals were filed before the completion of process of privatization. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of employees have argued that the rights and privileges of the employees have not been affected by privatization and the only Tribunal competent to grant relief to them is the Federal Service Tribunal. According to the learned counsel the jurisdiction conferred on this Tribunal by section 2-A, inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, has not been taken away by the privatization of the Bank.
3. Section 2-A was incorporated in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 10-6-1997. The employees of Nationalized Institutions and governmental controlled Commercial Organizations were declared to be Civil Servant for limited purposes. They were declared Civil Servants so that they could get relief from this Tribunal. They however continued to be governed by their respective service rules. The provisions of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were not made applicable to them. All pending proceedings relating to the terms and conditions of the employees of such institution were transferred to this Tribunal from the date insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. After privatization of the respondent-Bank its employees have ceased to be governed by section 2-A (ibid). The employees of the governmental controlled Organizations were provided a legal forum by Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and in the same manner the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been taken away by the Privatization Commission Ordinance No,LII of 2000. The relevant provisions of this Ordinance are contained in sections 28 and 31. Both these sections are reproduced in verbatim as under:--- "28. Jurisdiction of High Courts.---Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,the High Court shall exercise exclusive civil and criminal jurisdiction---
(a) to adjudicate and settle all matters related to, arising from or under or in connection with this Ordinance;
(b) to adjudicate and settle all matters transferred pursuant to section 31; and
31. Transfer of cases.---(1) All legal proceedings whatsoever and matters related to or under or in connection with or arising from privatization, the privatization process or privatization programme pending on the commencement of this Ordinance before any forum, tribunal or Court shall stand transferred to the High Court having jurisdiction provided that nothing contained herein shall affect any proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
(2) In respect of matters transferred to a High Court under subsection (1), the High Court shall proceed from the stage at which the proceedings had reached immediately prior to the transfer and shall not be bound to recall and rehear any witness and may act on the evidence already recorded or produced before the forum, tribunal or Court from which the proceedings were transferred.
3-A. From a plain reading of the above provisions of law it is clear that for all matters arising out of process of privatization jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been taken away and the powers to resolve such matters has been vested in the respective High Courts. The words 'whatsoever' mentioned in Section 31 are very significant and comprehensive. In our view all types of legal proceedings including the proceedings initiated by the employees of the privatized Bank or against the employees of such Bank in respect of terms and conditions of their service have been transferred to the High Court by operation of Section 31.
4. In this regard Section 42 of the aforementioned Ordinance is also very relevant. It reads as under:- "42. Ordinance to override other laws.---The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force and any such law, rule or regulation shall, to the extent of any inconsistency, cease to have effect from the date this Ordinance comes into force."
' This provision of law is overriding and by its implication Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has become ineffective so far as the employees of the privatized Banks/Institutions are concerned. Chaudhry Ghulam Qadir Cheema, Advocate has vehemently argued that the Privatization Commission Ordinance has not been promulgated by a Competent Authority and the actual privatization has also not taken place under a special legislation, therefore, the rights of the employees to continue their grievances in this Tribunal are not adversely affected. His argument is that the Ordinance does not have retrospective effect and by its operation the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is not ousted. We find no force in the argument of the learned counsel. The Ordinance was issued by the President of Pakistan and under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 he is fully empowered to promulgate Ordinances when the Assembly is not in session. The process of privatization was completed under a valid legislation. We do not agree with the learned counsel that the privatization process was completed by any unauthorized Authority.
5. The rights and privileges of the employees of the respondent-Bank are to be determined by the High Court and not by this Tribunal. It is an established law that when any amendment is made in a procedural law it shall have retrospective effect and the amendment shall affect the pending cases as well as the causes of action which had arisen prior to the amendment. Reliance is placed on judgment of the apex Court dated 20-12-1999 given in Civil Appeals No,453, 701, 1156 of 1998, 286 to 292, 317, 318, 326, 327, 343 of 1998, 459, 441, 442, 443, 445, 446, 447, 457, 458, 566 to 576 of 1998, 435 to 440, 444, 448 to 451, 460 to 462 & 469 of 1998. The apex Court had made reference to 1999 SCM R 92, 1998 SCM R 1603 and 1999 SCM R 197. In the light of these authorities we hold that by the Privatization Commission Ordinance No,LII of 2000 procedural change has been made and this change affects C the appeals. These appeals are no longer competent in this Tribunal. These appeals stand transferred to the Honourable High Court by operation of law.
6. In some cases the appellants have not appeared inspite of service. Some appeals are fixed for pre-admission hearing. As this Tribunal has ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, no order for or against the appellants can be passed. The appeals can neither be dismissed in default nor dismissed in limine. We cannot express our view with regard to merits or demerits of the present appeals. It is now for the Honourable High Court to decide these appeals. The appellants have every right to agitate their grievances before the appropriate legal forum i.e, High Court.
7. For the above reasons, we hold that after privatization of the United Bank Limited the present appeals are no longer maintainable in this Tribunal. The Tribunal has ceased to have jurisdiction.
8. The appellants may, if so desire, submit application before the Honourable High Court for summoning the record of the present appeals and all other appeals previously decided. The appellants have requested that the appeals be sent directly to the High Court. We cannot accede to this request of the appellants. The High Court is the highest constitutional Court of file Province. It is desirable that the appellants get appropriate orders for transfer of their appeals from the High Court.
9. There shall be no order as to costs. Parties be informed.