IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited (hereinafter called, the (petitioner) is one of the eight distribution and supply companies formed due to re-organization of Water and Power Development Authority by the Government of Pakistan and is engaged in the business of supplying electricity to general public within its territorial jurisdiction. Further contends that respondent No,2 joined the service of the petitioner almost thirty years ago as Sub-Division clerk. During his service while he was posted in Margalla Sub-Division, he was issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 2-10-2006 with the following allegations:- "You were found involved in the illegal gratification provided by Kashmir Flour Mills Management from time to time for reducing the MDI reading and also for the extension of load case of the same flour mill."
' That after conducting an inquiry against respondent No,2, he was awarded the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. Departmental Appeal was filed on 7-1-2007 against the said order. Thereafter, respondent No,2 served Grievance Notice followed by a Grievance Petition submitted before the learned Labour Court. It was accepted vide Order dated 25-2-2011 by respondent No,
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner through the instant Constitutional Petition has assailed the said judgment contending, that the Impugned judgment is not sustainable in law as the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as I.R.A. 2008) stood repealed during the pendency of the Grievance Petition, therefore, the judgment passed by respondent No,1 is illegal and without lawful authority; that the judgment, having been passed without any cover of law, has no effect upon the rights of the petitioner and prays for setting aside of the same. Places reliance on judgment dated 2-6-2011 passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Constitutional Petition No,24 of 2011.
2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No, 2 contends that the impugned judgment has been passed by respondent No,1 in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it and the petitioner had failed to challenge the same through an Appeal as provided under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, within the statutory period of thirty days, hence the. Writ Petition is not maintainable. Further contends that I.R.A. 2008 was considered to be continued as per judgment of this Court dated 24-5-2010, passed in Writ Petition No,10746 of 2010 and that the Impugned Judgment is covered in view of Article 264 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. Mr. Rashid Hafeez learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab appealing on Court's call, submits that in view of judgment dated 2-6-2011, passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Constitutional Petition No,24 of 2011, I.R.A. 2008 stood repealed on 30-4-2010 in view of section 87 of the said Act, wherein it is clearly mentioned that unless earlier repealed, this Act shall stand repealed on 30th April, 2010, therefore, the protection granted by virtue of clause (6) of Article 270AA of the Constitution is not applicable. Further contends that clause (6) of Article 270AA provides that notwithstanding the omission of Concurrent Legislative Lists, all laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in said lists shall continue to remain in force until altered, repealed or amended by the competent authority. Since, Concurrent Legislative List has been abolished, protection could be provided to all the permanent laws enacted by the Parliament on the subjects mentioned in said list. Although protection was provided to I.R.A., 2008 by said clause yet it did not have any effect on section 87, which remained operative in its full force. Therefore, I.R.A. 2008 died its own death on 30-4-2010; that Province of the Punjab promulgated Punjab Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010 on 13-6-2010 which was to expire on 10-9-2010, however, life of said Ordinance was extended for a further period of 90-days through Resolution passed by the Provincial Assembly on 23-7-2010 and finally, said Ordinance was repealed by the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 on 9-12-2010; that Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 is in field and Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 79 of said Act gives cover inter alia to the proceedings of the Court constituted under I.R.A.
2008, therefore, the proceedings pending under I.R.A 2008 shall be deemed to be pending under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and that respondent No,1 has decided the Grievance Petition of respondent No,2 under the provisions of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, therefore, the impugned Order suffers from no illegality; that during the interregnum period from 30-4-2010 to 12-6-2010, no law relating to Industrial Relations was in field and during that period, the remedy under the ordinary law might be "availed of and that Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 being mainly a procedural Statute may be given retrospective effect and the pending proceedings could be protected. Places reliance on 1996 SCM R 237 titled Malik Gut Hasan and Co.
And 5 others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No,2 and the learned A.A.-G. As far as the question. Of protection to I.R.A. 2008 up to 30-6-2011 is concerned, it is held that I.R.A. 2008 by virtue of section 87 stood repealed on 30-4-2010 and that Clause (6) of Article 270AA of the Constitution is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the life of I.R.A. 2008 has been mentioned in section 87 ibid.
5. As far as applicability of Article 264 of the Constitution is concerned, it is held that Article 264 of the Constitution shall not be applicable in the instant case firstly; for the reason that I.R.A. 2008 was not repealed by, under, or by virtue of the Constitution, rather it died on expiry of the statutory period. Secondly; the purpose of Article 264 of the Constitution is to provide protection to the operation of law, rights, liabilities accrued, and penalties incurred in respect of any repealed law and does not state that it would provide protection to the laws previously in force.
6. Since, Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 is mainly a procedural law. In the light of the well settled principles of interpretation of Statutes, the procedural law has to have retrospective effect unless contrary is provided expressly or impliedly. The Act of 2010 would be applicable retrospectively w,e,f, 1-5-2010 when I.R.A. 2008 was repealed.
7. That Clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 79 of the Act clearly gives cover inter alia to the proceedings taken. The Labour Court is constituted under I.R.A. 2008, therefore, the proceedings pending under I.R.A. 2008 shall be deemed to be pending under the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. Respondent No, I have decided the Grievance petition of respondent No,2 under the provisions of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, therefore, the impugned order suffers from no illegality.
The petitioner opted not to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Having failed to avail the statutory remedy under the law, he is not entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. This petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.