' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This appeal with the leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment dated 19.12.2013 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad whereby the learned Judge in its chambers disposed of the petition filed' by the appellant as under:--- "15. Record reveals that rival trade-unions of respondent No, 4 have already moved the competent forum in appeal against the same impugned order seeking cancellation of CBA certificate granted to respondent No, 4, but the petitioner, instead of moving the said forum under Section 12 of IRA, 2012, again filed present Constitutional petition on the same grounds, therefore, the proper course for the petitioner would be to move the learned NIRC under Section 12 of Act ibid against the impugned order at the first instance, as it is settled principle that in presence of alternate efficacious remedy, writ petition is not maintainable.
16. The petition is disposed of in above terms".
2. Points raised and noted at the time of grant of leave read as under:- "Learned ASC for the petitioner, for grant of leave to appeal in this petition, places reliance upon a recent judgment of this Court dated 17.1.2014, passed in Civil Appeals No, 2214 & 2215 of 2008, wherein, making reference to section 23 of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance XXX of 1982, which seems to be pari materia to section 41(6) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re- Organization) Act, 1996, it has been held that the Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act, X of 2012 has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.
2. Contention raised needs examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted".
3. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that section 41(6) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, XVII of 1996 clearly excludes the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore, the judgment directing the petitioner to approach respondent No, 2, Registrar NIRC does not conform to the letter and spirit of the provision mentioned above. The learned ASC next contended that though the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 has not been excluded through amendment in Section 41(6) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, XVII of 1996 but the exclusion of the repealed law would also include the law enacted subsequently, in view of the provision contained in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act. The learned ASC next contended that where appellant-Corporation is providing services to the Armed Forces, its case would be squarely covered by section 1(3)(a) of Act X of 2012, therefore, it will not apply to the officers and employees of the Corporation. Formation of Associations and Unions, the learned ASC submitted, is a fundamental right under Article 17(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan but such right is always subject to reasonable restrictions, therefore, any interpretations to the contrary would tend defeat the spirit of the Article.
4. The learned ASC appearing for the respondents maintained that when Section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act, X of 2012 gives overriding effect to its provisions over any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 cannot be an exception to it, therefore, the impugned judgment is not open to any interference.
The learned ASC next contended that where Section 1(3) itself provided the exceptions as enumerated in its clauses a, b, c and d, no other exception could be supplied or added thereto by having recourse to interpretative niceties. The learned ASC next contended that it would also be in conformity with Article 17(1) of the Constitution and International Labour Organization Conventions to apply Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to the officers and employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation. The learned ASC to support his contention also placed reliance on the case of "Civil Aviation Authority, Islamabad and others v. Union of Civil Aviation Employees and another" (PLD 1997 SC 781). The learned ASC by concluding his arguments contended that registration of a trade .Union can neither be questioned by an already existing trade union in the establishment nor by the employer, therefore, the appellant lacking locus standi can't challenge it.
The learned ASC to support his contention placed reliance on the case of "Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others" (1998 PLC 500).
5. The learned Dy. A.G. Appearing on notice contended that the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 is a special law, therefore, its provisions will prevail notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any general law of the land. The learned Dy. A.G. To support his contention placed reliance on the cases of "Noor Muhammad v. The State" (PLD 1991 S.C. 150), "Brig. Sher Ali Baz, and another v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others" (PLD 1991 S.C.
143) and the case of "Amjad Qadoos v. The Chairman National. Accountability Bureau (NAB), Islamabad, etc. rendered in Civil Petition No 669 of 2014.
6. We have gone through the entire record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned ASCs for the parties and Deputy Attorney General on Court notice.
7. Before we proceed to discuss the arguments addressed at the bar, it is worthwhile to refer to section 41 of Act XVII of 1996 which reads as under--- "41. National Telecommunication Corporation.--
(1) As soon as may be but not later than thirty days from the commencing day of this [xxx] [Act], the Federal Government shall establish a corporation to be known as the National Telecommunication Corporation which shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire and hold, property, both moveable and immovable, and shall sue and be sued by its name.
(2) The National Telecommunication Corporation shall be managed by a Management Board consisting of a Chairman and two other, members, to, be appointed by the Federal Government.
(3) The Authority shall grant a licence to the National Telecommunication Corporation for provision of telecommunication services within Pakistan on a non-exclusive basis only to the armed forces, defence projects, Federal Government, Provincial Governments or such other Governmental agencies or Governmental institutions as, the Federal Government may determine; and during the exclusivity period of the Company specified in section 39, the National Telecommunication Corporation shall not sell its capacity on the telecommunication system to any person other than such Government agencies or the Company.
(4) The National Telecommunication Corporation shall have the power to:---
(a) appoint, promote, remove and exercise discipline and control over its staff;
(b) set-up its internal organizations, including bureaus, divisions or offices and make appointments thereto;
(c) enter into contracts;
(d) acquire, lease, encumber, dispose of, exchange, invest or otherwise deal with any moveable or immovable property or any interest therein or thereto; and
(e) levy and collect fee and other charges for the service provided by it at such rates as may be determined by the Federal Government.
(5) For the purpose of its functions, the National Telecommunication Corporation may, subject to regulations made by it providing for procedure of appointment, promotion, termination and terms and conditions of service, employ such persons, as it may consider necessary.
(6) The officers and employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation shall, for the purpose of this Act, be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), and the Industrial Relations Ordinance [xxxx] [2002 (XCI of 2002),], shall not apply.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
' Another provision which is relevant for the purpose of this case is section 58 which reads as under:--- "58. Act to override other laws.--- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Telegraph Act, 1885 (XIII of 1885), the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (XVII of 1933), or other law containing any provision inconsistence to this Act."
8. The question emerging for the consideration of this Court is whether the provisions of Industrial Relations Act X of 2012 would apply to the officers and employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation despite provisions contained in sections 41(6) and 58 of Act XVII of 1996. Before answering the question, it is imperative to refer to A section 1 of Act X of 2012 which reads as under:--- " 1 . Short title, extent, application and commencement.-- (1) This Act may be called the Industrial Relations Act, 2012.
(2) Subject to sub-section (3), it extends to the whole of Pakistan.
(3) It shall apply to all persons employed in any establishment or industry, in the Islamabad Capital Territory' or carrying on business in more than one Province, but shall not apply to any person employed:---
(a) in the Police or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan or any services or installations exclusively connected with the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government;
(b) in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen;
(c) as a member of the Security Staff of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation or drawing wages in pay group not lower than Group V in the establishment of that corporation as the Federal Government may, in the public interest or in the interest of security of the Airlines, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
(d) by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation or the Security Papers Limited; and
(e) by an establishment or institution for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute or mentally unfit persons excluding those run on commercial basis.
(4) It shall come into force at once."
' Another provision relevant in this behalf is section 87 which runs as under:---
87. Act to override other laws.--- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force."
' Section 41(6) of Act XVII, 1996 excludes the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 to the officers and employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation. Section 58 of the Act further cements the exclusion by providing that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Telegraph Act, 1885 (XIII of 1885), the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (XVII of 1933) or other law containing any provision inconsistent with this Act.
Ordinance XCI of 2002 was repealed by section 87 of the Industrial Relations Act; IV of 2008 in the words running as under:--- "87. 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."
9. Clauses (a) and (b) of the provisions reproduced above save the things done as having been done under the corresponding provisions of the repealing Act while clause (c) construes reference to the repealed Ordinance relating to Industrial Relations as reference to the corresponding provisions of this Act. Section 88 of Act X of 2012, reiterates the same in the words reading as under:--- "88. Repeal and savings.--- The Industrial Relations Act, 2008 (IV of 2008), having already been repealed by virtue of sub-section (3) of section 87 thereof, notwithstanding the repeal of the said Act, hereinafter 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 of an establishment or industry located in the Islamabad Capital Territory, or in more than one province and 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 actions taken under the repealed Act 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 Act relating to industrial relations shall be construed as referring to the corresponding provisions of this Act,"
10. When reference to the repealed Ordinance of 2002 has been construed as reference to the corresponding provisions of Act IV of 2008 by virtue of its provision contained in section 87 and reference to the repealed Act of 2008 has been construed as reference to the corresponding provisions of Act X of 2012 by virtue of its provision contained in section 88, its application to the officers and employees of the Corporation cannot be attracted under any canons of interpretation.
11. Yes section 87 of Act IX of 2012 overrides the provisions of any other law for the time being in force but not its own in general and the one contained in section 88 in particular, which unequivocally provides that any document referring to the repealed Act relating to the industrial relations shall be construed as referring to the corresponding provisions of this Act.
12. Section 8 of the General Clauses Act which, in its essence and substance, provides what section 88 of Act X of 2012 does and thereby gives added strength to the aforesaid exclusion by adumbrating that "where this Act or any other Act after the commencement of this Act repeals and re-enacts, with or without modification of any provision of former enactment, then reference in any other enactment or in any instrument to the provision so repealed shall, unless a different intention appears, be construed as reference to the provisions so reenacted". Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Act of 2012 would not apply to the officers and employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation in the absence of any different intention appearing in any of its provisions. There is also nothing in Act XVII of 1996 and that of 2012 as could present a conflict between the two. A close and careful reading of the two would unmistakably show that they are in harmony with each other. Therefore, the argument of the learned Dy. Attorney General addressed on the assumption that there is a conflict between the provisions of Act XVII of 1996 and those of Act X of 2012, is wholly misconceived. The judgments rendered in the cases of "Noor Muhammad v.
The State", "Brig. Sher Ali Baz and another v. The Secretary, Establishment Division and others" and the case of "Amjad Qadoos v. The Chairman National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Islamabad, etc. Rendered in Civil Petition No, 669 of 2014 (supra) are, therefore, not relevant to the case in hand.
The argument of the learned ASC for the appellant that where the Corporation is providing services to the Armed Farces, its case would be squarely covered by 1(3)(a) of Act IX of 2012, therefore, its provisions will not apply to the officers and employees of the Corporation is not correct inasmuch as the services provided by the Corporation to the Armed Forces cannot be termed to be exclusive on any account.
13. Reference to Article 17(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan would not help attract the application of the Act of 2012 to the officers and employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation notwithstanding it would not restrict their right to form associations or unions to voice their grievances and negotiate with their employers for better terms of their employment in view of the judgment rendered in the case of "Civil Aviation Authority, Islamabad and others v. Union of Civil Aviation Employees" (Supra).
14. Reference to International Labour Organization Conventions, too, would not help attract the application of the Act of 2012 to the officers and employees of the Corporation when such right in view of Articles 2, 8 and 9 of the CO 87 is not absolute and unqualified but subject to the rules of the organization concerned and law of the land while in the case of Armed Forces and the Police such right has to be determined by the National Laws and Ordinances. The argument of the learned ASC for the respondent that registration of a trade union can neither be questioned by an already existing trade union in the establishment nor by the employer, therefore, the appellant lacking locus standi cannot challenge it, may be valid in a dispensation where Act IX of 2012 is applicable but not otherwise. Therefore, the argument as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others" (Supra) will have no relevance to the case in hand.
15. Having thus considered, we have no hesitation to hold that Industrial Relations Act X of 2012 does not apply to the officers and employees of the National Telecommunication A Corporation and that impugned judgment being against the express provisions of the law cannot be maintained.
16. For the reasons discussed above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment with no order as to costs.
High Court Reversed/.