ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAINJ.-.--This petition by Pakistan Television Corpora--tion Limited (hereinafter call fled PTC) is directed against the judgment dated 2-2-1981 (1981 PLC : 219) of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court whereby Intra-Court Appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed. The facts leading to this petition are briefly as follows:
2. On 16-2-1978, as a result of some dispute between the Management of the P T C and some of its employees, some employees indulged in hooli--ganism and took over the TVCentre at Lahore and also committed various other acts of misconduct. S Since it could not be determined, forthwith, as to who exactly were the persons who took part in the aforementioned take--over and misconduct, preliminary investigation was conducted and it was found on 16-4-1978 that the respondent and some others were the culprits. A charge-sheet was, therefore, issued to all of them on the same date, i.e. 16-4-1978, requiring them to send their explanation within 3 days. They were also suspended from service. The respondent submitted his written explanation on 20-4-1978, which was found unsatisfactory, and an inquiry was commenced. The respondent and three others who were also similarly charged sheeted, filed separate writ petitions in the High Court challenged the legality of the charge-sheets and their suspension orders dated 19-4-1978. The writ petitions were accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by four separate orders dated 30-6-1979 (1981 PLC (C. S.) 726). The PTC There upon filed Intra-Court Appeals which were heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 2-2- 1981.Hence, the present petition.
3. The learned counsel for the P T C (petitioner) pointed out that although the learned Single Judge has accepted respondent's writ petitions on different grounds the learned Judges of the Division Bench dismissed the Intra-Court Appeal mainly on the ground that the PTC Employees Rules, 1978 have not been framed by the Chairman of the N I R C .i.e. National Industrial Relations Commission) but by a Member of the N.I. R. C. And were as such, ultra vires to the Act under which they were framed.
4. To understand thins submission it may be pointed out that the respondent-employees have based their writ petitions mainly on the ground that as provided by Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) the employer was required to inform the workman, in writing, .Of the alleged misconduct within one month of the date of the misconduct or within one month of the date on which the said misconduct comes to the notice of the employer. It was contended that since in the present case the charge-sheet was issued to the respondents on 16-4-1978 i.e. Two months after the alleged misconduct), the charge-sheet was bad in law and the inquiry against their could not, therefore, be founded.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner (PTC) pointed out before us that Standing Order 15(4) on which reliance had been placed by the respondents is not applicable to the PTC because the said Ordinance was not applicable to the PTC. In this connection he referred us to proviso to sec--tion 4 of the Ordinance which provides that- "nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government where statutory rules of service, conductor discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein."
6. With a view to show the ouster of the application of Standing Order 15(4) of the Ordinance to the PTC the learned counsel pointed out that the statutory rules of service which are applicable to the employees of the PTC (known as the "PTC Employees' Service Rules, 1978") have been framed under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the P. E. S. M.
Act) read with rules 2(b) and 3(1) of the Pakistan Essential Services Maintenance Rules, 1962. The relevant portion of the said Act and rules read as follows:- P. E. S. M. Act, ------6.-(1) The Federal Government may make rules regulating or empowering a specified authority to regulate the wages and other conditions of service of persons or of any class of persons engaged in any employ--ment or class of employment, declared under section 3 to be an employment or class of employment to which this Act applies.
(2) When any such rules have been made or when any directions regulating wages or conditions of service have been given by an authority empowered by such rules to give them, any person failing to comply therewith, is guilty of an offence under this Act."
P. E. S. M. Rules.
"2. In these rules-
(a) ` Act' means the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (LIII of 1952), and
(b) `Chairman' means the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and includes a member of that Commission authorised by the Chairman in this behalf". (Underlining* is ours).
3(1) The Chairman is hereby empowered to regulate subject to the other provisions of this rule, the wages and conditions of service of persons or class of persons engaged in any employment or class of employment to which these rules apply."
7. As observed earlier the learned LPA Bench has held that the PTC Employees' Service Rules, 1978, have not been framed by a competent authority. The reason given by the learned Bench for this conclusion is that whereas rules were to be framed by the "Chairman" of the N. I. R. C. These have been framed only by a "Member" of the said Commission. The learned counsel pointed out that the definition of "Chairman" as contained in rule 2(b) of the P.E. S. M. Rules, 1962 includes not only the Chairman himself but also includes (by definition) a Member of the Commis--sion duly authorised by theChairman. The counsel submitted that the learned Division Bench of the High Court omitted to take notice of this and that the Rules in question having been framed by a Member who was admittedly authorised by the Chairman of N. I. R. C. To do so, had been framed by the competent authority and, as such, were quite valid and intra vires. We feel that there is considerable force in this contention which needs further consideration.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, caveators pointed out on the other hand that under section 6 of P. E. S. M. Act the Federal Government is empowered to delegate its rule-making power to specified authorities. The Federal Government in exercise of those powers, empowered the Chairman, N. I. R. C. To frame the Rules in question. But as already mentioned clause (b) of rule 2 of the P. E. S. M: Act, 1952, authorises the Chairman to further delegate the rule-making power to any Member of the N.I. R. C. He submitted that in law a delegatee cannot further delegate the powers to legislate.
9. Considering that we propose to grant leave to the PTC on the question whether the PTC Service Rules have been competently framed, we feel that leave should also be granted on the contention raised by the learned counsel for the caveators.
10. Leave is; therefore, granted to consider whether (a) the PTC Employees Service Rules, framed by a Member of the N. I. R. C. Who was duly authorised by the Chairman, N. I. R: C. Have been competently framed and are not ultra vires of section 6 of the P. E. S. M. Act, 1952, and (b) whether rule 2(b) of P. E. S. M. Rules authorised the Chairman to delegate his power to frame Rules, is not bad in law as it empowers a delegatee of the Federal Government to further delegate the rule- making powers to a person of his own choice.