' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.--- Through this judgment, we propose to decide the instant writ petition whereas, the petitioners have ought relief of setting aside the judgment/order dated 15-12-2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court, Mardan, against the petitioners. The petitioners in the first instance, preferred thereof an appeal against the impugned judgment, before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar, established thereunder Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Industrial Relation Act, 2010 (Act of 2010) but as the Act of 2010 was not extended thereto the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) and as such the petitioners could not invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal thereunder the provisions contained in section 51 of the Act of 2010. The learned Tribunal instead of returning the memorandum of the appeal to the petitioners make direction that it may be placed before this Court, whereupon the office registered the said appeal as a Writ Petition bearing No, 3361 of 2011.
2. The PATA has its unique constitutional status whereas, no act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] or a provincial Assembly shall apply to a Provincially Administered Tribal Area, or to any part thereof, unless the Governor of the Province in which the Tribal Area is situate, with the approval of the President, so directs; and in giving such a direction with respect to any law, the President or, as the case may be, the Governor, may direct that the law shall, in its application to a Tribal Area, or to a specified part thereof, have effect subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the direction. Admittedly the matter in hand pertains to District of Swat, which is included in the areas known as PATA as defined thereunder the provisions contained in Clause-6 of Article 246 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution). It is also an admitted position, that the act of 2010 has not been so far extended to the PATA, in pursuance of the provisions contained in Clause-3 of Article 247 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioners could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, established and notified in pursuance of the provisions contained in section 51 of the Act of 2010. The legal proposition that whether the petitioners would not be competent to prefer thereof an appeal before the High Court, as provided thereunder the provisions of section 48 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 2002 (Ordinance of 2002), which was extended and applied there to the PATA by Governor of the N.- W.F.P. (Now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). Any Act, Ordinance or any other law applied thereto the PATA in the manner required under Article 247(3), of the constitution could not be considered ipso-facto repealed by the repealing act without extention of the repealing act strictly in accordance with the provisions contained thereunder Article 247(3) of the constitution. The act or law applied thereto and was in operation in the PATA, shall remain in its application till the repealing or subsequent act was extended thereto the PATA. As, prior to the Act of 2010 an another act known as Industrial Relation Act of 2008, was promulgated too but that was also not been extended to PATA. (The said Act of 2008 was repealed by the Act of 2010).
3. Provisions contained in section 83 of the Act of 2010 has saved the previous operation of the law which is read as;--- "Savings--- (1) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (IV of 2008), hereafter to be called the repealed Act, 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 Act 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 action taken under the repealed Act or purportedly under that Act till the coming into force of this Act, shall be deemed to have been done, made, issued, appointed, constituted, given, commenced or taken, under this Act; and
(c) any document referring to the repealed Act relating to industrial relations shall be construed as refereeing to the corresponding provisions of this Act."
4. Likewise, provisions contained in section 87 of the Act of 2008 embodied thereof similar provisions which had saved the operation of the previous applicable law which when reproduced is read as:--- "Repeal and savings.---
(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 the 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."
5. The provisions contained in section 6 of the Journal Clauses Act, 1897 as well as section 24 of the same act is also giving protection to all acts in or an order passed by the previous enactment in case the previous law is either repealed or amended by subsequent Act. Section 6 of the Journal Clauses Act, 1897 would read as; ' Section 6. Effect of repeal.--- Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereinafter to be made then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not---
(d) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(e) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(f) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(g) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or
(h) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation liability, penalty forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; And any such investigation legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.
' And in the same manner Section 24 of the Journal Clauses Act, 1897, envisage as:---
24. Continuation, of orders, etc., issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted. Where any Central Act or Regulation is, after the commencement of this Act, repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-laws made or issued under the repealed Act or Regulation, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the provisions so reenacted and when any Central Act or Regulation, which, by a notification under section 5 of 5A of the Schedule District Act, 1874 (XIV of 1874) or any like law, has been extended to any Local Area, has, by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn from and re-extended to such area or any part thereof, the provisions of such Act or Regulation shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area or part within the meaning of this section.
6. This Court while taking guidance therefrom the judgment of the Hon'ble Superior Court, which rendered thereof in case of Gul Zamin v. Sarfaraz Khan 1984 SCM R 374), enumerated the law on the subject in hand reported as Sarfaraz Khan v. General Manager English Soap and Cosmetic Company, Swat (2003 PLC 272) as "In absence of extention of repealed Ordinance, 2002 to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas it is safely presumed that extention of the Industrial Relation Commission, 1969 has not repealed and the extention is still in the field."
7. The same view has also been held by the apex Court in case of Government of Punjab through Secretary v. Zia Ullah Khan and 2 others (1992 SCM R 602).
8. In view of the provisions contained in section 83 of the 'Act of 2010, section 87 of the Act of 2008 when read in conjunction with sections 6, 24 of the Journal Clauses Act, 1897 and an inference drawn therefrom the judgment of the apex Court reported as 1984 SCM R 374, 1992 SCM R 602 and in absence of the extention of the Act of 2010 to the PATA we are of the considered view that the Ordinance of 2002 has not been repealed and still is in existence in the field, should be given effect to and any aggrieved person may file an appeal thereunder the provisions contained in section 48 of the Ordinance of 2002, in the same manner as the Ordinance of 2002 was not repealed.
9. In view of the reasons given herein above, this Writ Petition is treated as an appeal thereunder section 48 of the Ordinance of 2002.
10. On facts the respondent was an employee of the erstwhile Gemstone Corporation, when, he was dismissed therefrom the employment on some charges of theft etc. The respondent preferred a grievance petition before the Labour Court against its dismissal thereunder the provisions contained in section 25 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which was accepted by the learned Labour Court through its judgment dated 8-10-1998, whereby the dismissal was converted to compulsory retirement, giving the respondent, all back-benefits as was admissible to other employees.
11. The respondent, filed execution proceedings before the learned Labour Court, against the Corporation, but in the meanwhile, the Corporation was liquidated and the asset of the corporation was entrusted to the petitioner department.
12. The respondent, prayed for the impleadment of the petitioner in the execution proceedings which was allowed by this Court on acceptance of the appeal of the respondent in that regard and the case was remanded back to the executing Court though its judgment dated 12-9-2006.
13. As the petitioners were reluctant to satisfy the decree passed against the defunct corporation, whereafter petitioners were held responsible by this Court to satisfy the decree, being successor in interest of the corporation, the learned Labour Court, attached the assets of the petitioners and ordered the auction of the same through the impugned judgment-dated 15-10-2010.
14. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, petitioners have preferred the instant appeal.
15. The respondent was an employee of the erstwhile, Gemstone Corporation of Pakistan, but the said defunct corporation was winded up in the year 1994 and all the assets of the said defunct corporation was transferred to the petitioners, in consequent upon a meeting held between the Provincial Government of KPK and the Federal Government, whereas a considerable amount was transferred to the petitioner for payment onward to the employees in lieu of the golden handshake scheme which fact is itself evident from Agenda No,(d) envisaged therein the summary approved thereof. A copy of which has been placed on record of this writ petition by petitioners themselves.
16. All the responsibility, obligations of the erstwhile corporation along with all the assets of the defunct corporation was transferred to the petitioners. A huge immovable property and precious stock worth billion of rupees were handed over to the petitioners by the Federal Government, which are still under use of the petitioners.
17. A sum of Rs,63.000 Millions was provided to the petitioners by the privatization commission of Pakistan for payment onward to all workers liabilities.
18. As the petitioners are legal successor in interest of the defunct corporation and a huge amount had been received by the petitioners therefrom the privatization commission of Pakistan to over come all the liabilities due from erstwhile corporation, petitioners are bound to pay back the due emoluments of respondents, being the successor in interest of the erstwhile Gemstone Corporation (the principle judgment-debtor).
19. The impugned judgment of the learned Labour Court is based on correct appreciation of law on the subject, needs no legal interference.
20. Keeping in view the reasons given herein above, this writ petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly dismissed.