1. NAS1M HASAN SHAH, J.--This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 955 of 1981 and Civil Petition No. 1956 of 1981, as both are directed against a common judgment dated 8-8-1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. The petitioner in Civil Petition No. 955 of 1981, Shabbir Ahmad, was a Lineman in WAPDA, whose services were dispensed with in exercise of the powers under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act by order dated 28-6-1976. He filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) which was accepted by the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, by its order dated 9-11-1978, who set aside the order dated 28-6-1976 passed by WAPDA and directed the petitioners re-instatement without back benefits. In compliance with the order of the Lahore Court, WAPDA, by its office order dated 9-12-1978 re-instated the petitioner to service with immediate effect but without back benefits. Both the petitioners and WAPDA felt aggrieved by the said order.
3. WAPDA appealed for its reversal, while the petitioner in his appeal prayed for the grant of back benefits. However, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore confirmed the order dated 9-11- 1978 passed by the Labour Court and dismissed both the appeals by its order dated 23-12-1979.
4. Similarly, the petitioner in Civil Petition No. 956 of 1981 (Faqir Sain) was also an employee of WAPDA.
5. He was working as Meter Reader. His services too were terminated in exercise of the powers under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. He too was re-instated without back benefits by the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore. . This order too was the subject-matter of two appeals, both of which were dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
6. Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeals of WAPDA in these two and cases of similar nature by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Ordinance LXXII of 1979 was promulgated on 29th December, 1979 which added a new sub--section (1-C) to section 17 of the WAPDA Act (XXXI of 1958).
7. In exercise of its powers under the newly added subsection (1-C) of section 17, WAPDA by its office order dated 2-1-1980 relieved the petitioners in both the petitions of their duties with immediate effect.
8. The petitioner in Civil Petition No. 955 of 1981 (Shabbir Ahmad) challenged the lawfulness of the order, dated 2-1-1980 by filing a writ petition (W. P. No. 580/80) in the Lahore High Court at Lahore.
9. The petitioner in Civil Petition No. 956 of 1981 (Faqir Sain) did the same by filing Writ Petition No. 678 of 1980. Both these writ petitions were dismissed alongwith some other similar matters by the order dated 8-8-1981 passed by a Division Bench of the said learned Court. Hence these two petitions for special leave to appeal.
10. Mr. M. Farani, learned counsel, for. The petitioners in both the matters challenged before us the vires of the Ordinance LXXII of 1979 under which the impugned orders were passed on various grounds.
11. However; when w pointed out that the validity of this Ordinance was not open to question after the promulgation of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, he attempt--ed to argue that the said Order was not relevant in the present context However, Article 15(l) of the Provisional Constitution Order, in our opinion, governs the situation. This provision is in the following terms: - "15.-(1) The Proclamation of the fifth day of July 1977, all President's Orders of the Chief Martial Law Administrator, including orders amending the Constitution made by the President or the Chief Martial Law Administrator, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Order and all other laws made on or after the fifth day of July, 1977, are hereby declared, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court, to have been validly made by competent authority and shall not be called question in force until altered, repealed, reconstituted or amend by the competent authority."
12. Thus, all laws, inter alga, made on or after the 5th day of July, 1977 are not open to question in any Court on any ground whatsoever. Since Ordinance LXXII of 1979 was promulgated after the said date it is similarly not open to question.
13. Mr. Farani submitted that if this was the position he was unable to press any of his grounds on which he desired to assail the validity of the impugned orders.
14. These petitions fail and are dismissed hereby.