' Gut. MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-This order shall also dispose of other similar petitions Nos. 678, 1130, 1156, 1259, 1884 and 3009 of 1980 as they involve similar questions of law and fact.
2. The petitioner was working as a Lineman when his services were terminated vide order dated 28th June, 1976, under section 17 (1.A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, by respondent No,
1. He challenged that order before a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on 9th November, 1978. That petition succeeded and the petitioner was re-instated on 9th December, 1978. The respondent assailed that order in appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but the same was dismissed on 23rd December, 1979.
3. On 29th December, 1979, Ordinance LXXII of 1979 was promulgated. The petitioner was relieved of his job under section 17 (1-C) of it on 2nd January, 1980. He now challenges that order through the present writ petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is a civil servant under section 17 (I-B) and, therefore, he had a right to be heard before any action was taken against him. It may, however, be noted that under section 17 (1-A) the services of the petitioner could be terminated without assigning any reason. This being a specific provision for a particular category of employees must prevail on the Civil Servants Act particularly when the above provision had been incorporated by an amendment on 13th September, 1975. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot claim any right under the Civil Servants Act.
5. The learned counsel then submitted that the petitioner had a right of hearing under Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968. It is claimed that thereunder the petitioner had a right of being heard. Even' the above provision is of a general nature and is of a date prior to the' amendment in the WAPDA Act referred to above. Consequently the same shal1 not be operative in favour of the petitioner as he is to be g governed by the particular Act under which he is working. In any case section 1 (4) (c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance does not apply to the petitioner as he is an employee of a statutory Corporation. Reference is made to the case of National Shipping Corporation v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (1) and I. C. P. Employees Front v. Presiding Officer (2).
6. As noted above, the petitioner had been relieved of his services under section 17 (1-C) of the WAPDA Act. This provision was incorporated on 2nd January, 1980. It reads as follows:- (1-C) Any order of removal or termination of service passed by the Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection {{FOOT NOTE}} (1)1975 PLCI (2) PLD1976Kar.1176 {{FOOT NOTE}} (1-A), shall not be called in question in any proceedings taken under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1979 (XXIII of 1969), or under any law for the time being in force, before any Court, Tribunal or Commission and order passed by any Court, Tribunal or Commission after the 30th day of September, 1975, and before the coming into force of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, setting aside or modifying or declaring any order of the Authority to be void and of no effect, shall stand vacated."
The contents of it therefore, do go to specifically show that the petitioner could be validly relieved of his job thereunder and the previous order of his termination stood validated.
7. The same provisions of law were considered by us in Writ Petition No, 3555/S of 1980 (Raja Muhammad Sadiq v. WAPDA) in which we relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court to hold that the effect of section 17 (1-C) was the same as given above.
' In view of the above, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.