MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J.---Through this common judgment, I propose to decide Writ Petitions Nos,3454/2016, 2718/2017 and 2719/2017, as they entail common questions of law.
2. Through Writ Petition No,3454/2016, the petitioner, Nazeer Hussain, impugns the order dated 21.09.2016, passed by the learned Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission ("N.I.R.C."), whereby the appeal filed by respondent No,2 (Civil Aviation Authority) against the order dated 19.11.2014, passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C., was allowed, and consequently the petitioner's grievance petition filed under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 ("I.R.A., 2012") before the learned Member, N.I.R.C., was dismissed. Vide the said order dated 19.11.2014, the learned Member, N.I.R.C. dismissed respondent No,2's application seeking the dismissal of the petitioner's grievance petition on the ground that N.I.R.C. did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in view of section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 ("the C.A.A.
Ordinance").
3. Through Writ Petition No,2718/2017, the petitioner, Ms. Sehar Khan, impugns the order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C., whereby the petitioner's grievance petition against respondent No,1 (Civil Aviation Authority) was returned on the ground that N.I.R.C. did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said petition in view of the law laid down in the cases of National Telecommunication Corporation v. National Industrial Relations Commission (2014 SCM R 1833), Civil Aviation Authority v. Union of Civil Aviation Employees (PLD 1997 SC 781) and unreported judgment dated 17.01.2014, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals. Nos,2214 and 2215/2008.
4. Through Writ Petition No,2719/2017, the petitioner, Basharat Ali, impugns the order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C., which is exactly in the same nature as the one impugned in passed in Writ Petition No,2718/2017.
5. The petitioners in the above-mentioned writ petitions shall be collectively referred to as "the petitioners", whereas Civil Aviation Authority shall be referred to as "respondent No,1". The petitioners were employees of respondent No,1.
6. The petitioner (Nazeer Hussain) was issued a show-cause notice on 21.06.2014, wherein it was alleged that he had committed gross misconduct. After the Board of Inquiry investigated the matter, he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, and strong disciplinary action was recommended to be taken against him. It appears that an F.I.R. was also registered against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said show-cause notice, the petitioner approached the N.I.R.C. and was able to obtain interim relief. Respondent No, 1's preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petitioner's grievance petition before the N.I.R.C., was spurned, vide order dated 19.11.2014, passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C. Respondent No,l's appeal against the said order dated 19.11.2014, was allowed, vide order dated 21.09.2016, passed by the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. The said order dated 21.09.2016 has been impugned by the petitioner in Writ Petition No,3454/2016.
7. The petitioners (Ms. Sehar Khan and Basharat Ali) were served with show-cause notices from respondent No,1 alleging therein that their educational testimonials were found bogus. The said petitioners filed grievance petitions before the N.I.R.C., but vide impugned orders dated 24.04.2017, the same were returned as not maintainable. The said orders dated 24.04.2017 have been impugned by the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos,2718/2017 and 2719/2017.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although section 23 of the C.A.A. Ordinance excluded the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 from any person in the service of respondent No,1, but the operation of the I.R.A., 2012 had not been excluded; that the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. had non-suited the petitioner on mere technicalities; that Section 23 of the C.A.A.
Ordinance was not amended at any stage to replace "Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969" with "Industrial Relations Act, 2012"; and that since section 87 of the I.R.A., 2012 is a non-obstante provision providing for the provisions of the I.R.A., 2012 to override anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, the I.R.A., 2012 would override the C.A.A.
Ordinance; that there is no judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that the provisions of the I.R.A., 2012 were not applicable to respondent No,1 or any person in the service of respondent No,1; that the N.I.R.C. had the jurisdiction over the union matters in the establishment of respondent No,1; and that section 41(6) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996, could not have been equated with section 23 of the C.A.A. Ordinance. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for the writ petitions to be allowed, and for the order dated 21.09.2016, passed by the learned Full Bench, N.I.R.C. (impugned in Writ Petition No,3454/2016), and orders dated 24.04.2017, passed by the learned Member, N.I.R.C. (impugned in Writ Petitions Nos,2718 and 2719/2017), to be set-aside.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 submitted that by virtue of section 23 of the C.A.A. Ordinance, the I.R.A., 2012 had no applicability over respondent No,1 or any of its employees; that the N.I.R.C. had no jurisdiction to entertain or