' SARDAR MUHAMMAD, J.-This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 708-S/80, 769-S/80, 838- S/83, 840-S/80, 1002-S/80, 1089-S/80 and 284I-S/80 as they are connected matters and similar points of law are involved therein. However, the brief facts of each case are being given separately.
2. The petitioners in all these cases are employees of the Water and Power Development Authority.
' Riaz Ahmad petitioner (W. Petition No, 708-S/80) joined service with WAPDA, on 25-5-1960. His services were terminated on 5-7-1977 by exercising powers under section 17 (1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958. He filed appeal before the Punjab Labour Court which was accepted. He was re-instated in service on 2-8-1979 in pursuance of the orders of the Punjab Labour Court. His services were again terminated in pursuance of application of the provisions of section 17 (1-C) of the abovesaid Act, added by Amendment Ordinance No, LXXII of 1979. He has challenged the orders of termination dated 2-1-1980.
' The petitioner was tried by Summary Military Court-on the complaint of Wapda Authorities and was sentenced to one year R. I. And 10 lashes vide orders dated 28-12-1977. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court vide Writ Petition No, 54/78. He was granted bail. According to him the writ petition is still pending (the writ petition might have become infructuous because of the provisions of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 but that is beside the point).
' Mian Mahmud Ahmad petitioner (Writ Petition No, 769-S/80) joined service with the WAPDA on 14- 10-1965. He was suspended on 17-10-1977 and was served with a charge-sheet on 21-11-1977. He challenged this order before the Labour Court, on notice to the Authority their Law Officer appeared and stated that the suspension order has been withdrawn so he was re-instated. He was removed from service by the Authority exercising powers under section 17 (1-A) of the abovesaid Act vide orders dated 30-4-1978. He filed a petition in the Court of Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter called N. I. R. C,). The Chairman vide orders dated 21-11-1979 held the termination of services of the petitioner as illegal, which was published in the official Gazette on 12- 12-1974. The Gazette notification is Annexure 'F'. The petitioner's services were again terminated vide orders dated 6-1-1980, pursuant to the provisions of section 17 (1-C) of the Act.
' Munir Hussain petitioner (Writ Petition No, 838-S/80) who was in service of the Water and Power Drvelopment Authority was suspended on 11-4.1977, His services were terminated on 19-11-1977. He filed a petition before the Labour Court, as a result of which the orders of termination were set aside vide orders dated 16-2-1978. WAPDA Authorities filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide orders dated 7-1-1980. The petitioner was allowed to join but before that orders of his removal from service were passed vide orders dated 5-1-1980 in pursuance of the provisions of section 17 (1-C) of the. Wapda Act and the petitioner has challenged the said order through a writ petition.
' Fazal-ur-Rehman (petitioner in Writ Petition No, 840-S/80) joined service of Wapda on 26-2-1962.
He was removed from service under section 17 (I-A) of the Wapda Act vide orders dated 30-4-1971.
He challenged this order before the Chairman, N. I. R. C. The petition was accepted and the order of his re-instatement was passed by the learned Chairman, N. I. R. C. On 21-11-1979. Thereafter, vide orders dated 6-1-1981 he was removed from service following the provisions of section 17 (1-C), He has challenged the said order through a writ petition .
' Muhammad Saleem (petitioner in Writ Petition No, 1002-S/80) joined service on 10-6-1967. He was removed from service vide orders dated 27-6-1977 under section 17 (1-A) of the above said Act. He challenged the order before the Labour Court. His petition was accepted and he was re-instated vide orders dated 4-6-1981 of the Labor Court, Lahore. The respondent filed appeal. In the meantime, section 17 (1-C) was incorporated by an Ordinance and the Competent Authority vide orders dated 20-1-1980 in pursuance of the provisions of section 17 (1-C) of the Wapda Act passed the order of his removal from service. He has challenged the said order through a writ petition.
' Ch. Abdul Shakoor (petitioner in Writ Petition No, 1089-S/80) joined service of WAPDA on 4-6-1960.
He was removed from service vide order dated 7-7-1969 and in lieu of 30 days' notice he was paid one month's salary. His representation was accepted and the Competent Authority passed the orders of his re-instatement vide orders dated 25-4-1972 with effect from the date, he was removed from service. He was charge-sheeted on 31-10-1977 and was ordered to file reply within 14 days. The Competent Authority exercising powers under section 17 (1-A) on 4-12-1977 removed him from service on payment of 30 days' pay in lieu of notice. The petitioner filed a petition before the Chairman, N. I. R. C. He was granted an order, of holding in abeyance the order of removal from service, if not already served upon the petitioner. The learned Chairman vide order dated 14.11-1979 ordered the rescission of the order passed by the Competent Authority regarding removal from service of the petitioner and ordered that the petitioner shall be re-instated. Thereafter, after the addition of subsection (1-C) in section 17 vide Amendment Ordinance, 1979, the Competent Authority repeated the order of removal from service of the petitioner in pursuance of the provisions of section 17 (1-C) of the WAPDA Act.
' Ghulam Shabbir (petitioner in Writ Petition No, 2841.S/80) joined service with WAPDA in 1973. He was removed from service vide orders dated 3-12-1977 by exercising powers under section 17 (1-C) of the WAPDA Act. He filed a petition before the learned Chairman, N. I. R. C. The learned Chairman, N. I. R. C. On 10-12-1977 ordered that, 'if the order of removal has not so far been served, its service shall be kept in abeyance'. Thereafter, the learned Chairman. N. I. R. C. Dismissed the petition of the petitioner for want of jurisdiction, and after the addition of subsection (1-C) in section 17 vide Amendment Ordinance, 1979 the Competent Authority repeated the order of removal from service of the petitioner in pursuance of the provisions of section 17 (1-C) of the WAPDA Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that subsections (1-B) and (1-C) of section 17 of the WAPDA Act are inconsistent and as such the one which benefits the subject shall stay while the other shall be deemed as inoperative. It was also contended that the introduction of section 17 (1.A) in the above Act by Ordinance No, XVI of 1975 and the explanations thereunder and subsections (1-B) and (1-C) were also ultra vires of the Constitution.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while making submissions, carried us through various Constitutions to show as to how and when the WAPDA became the Central subject than from a Provincial subject. According to the submissions of the learned counsel in this regard, the Interim Constitution of 1972 and the Constitution of i973 made the WAPDA as a Central subject. This being the position, it cannot be said that the Central Legislature had no authority to legislate for the WAPDA after it was made a Central subject and so the Amendment Ordinance No, XVI introducing subsection (1-A) and its explanations and subsections (I-B) and (1-C) cannot be said to be ultra vires of the Constitution.
5. We find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that subsections (1- B) and (1-C) of section 17 are inconsistent and so, the one which benefits the subject shall stay, while the other shall be declared inoperative. Subsection (1-C) is of a later and, therefore, it has to B prevail over the provisions of subsection (1-B) in case of any conflict. It may also be noted that subsection (1-C) only excludes certain specified orders from scrutiny of Courts/Tribunals and consequently this exception cannot be void as such.
6.
6. It was next contended that in some of the cases the petitioners had approached the Labor Court and the Chairman, N. I. R. C. And in some cases favorable orders were also passed by these Tribunals and so their cases were covered by the Constitutional doctrine of past and closed transactions and as such could not be re-opened. It may be noted in this regard that no fresh orders of removal from service were passed in their cases also. Only the provisions of section 17 (1- A) were qualified by the addition of section 17 (1-C) and the provisions of section 17 (1-C) were ordered to be operative since the addition of section 17 (1-A) and consequently c the orders of removal from service passed by exercising powers under section 17 (1-A) stood validated and as such the later orders were only an illustration of validation of the earlier orders passed under section 17 (1-A). The orders of the Labour Court or the other Tribunal became functus officio, as those were passed without any jurisdiction. The Legislature been the supreme can always amend any of the legal provisions.
7. We have considered the authorities, i,e, Captain Muhammad Azhar v. Commissioner of Karachi etc. (1), Sh. Muhammad Nawaz v. The Secretary Irrigation and Power, Government of Baluchistan, Quetta and another (2) and Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayat Ullah Farukhi (3) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We do not find similarity of the facts of those cases with the one in hand and the principles laid down therein do not advance the case of the petitioners. In view of the clear provisions of sections 17 (1-A) and (1-C), deriving authority wherefrom the Competent Authority had passed the orders of removal from service of the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel for the WAPDA has produced unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Petition No, K-216/79, decided on 7-1-1981, wherein it has been held that in terms of subsection (1-A) of section 17 of WAPDA Act, 1958, WAPDA is competent to remove or retire any person in its service without assigning any reason after giving him notice of not less than 30 days or pay in lieu thereof. The facts of that case were that an Executive Engineer employed by WAPDA was removed from service by an order made on 14-11-1976 and with effect from 16-10-1976 on the same day. On the same day another order was made in the exercise of powers conferred on WAPDA under section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act retiring the incumbent from service on payment of 30 days' pay in lieu of notice. His appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal on the ground that the retirement was not mala fide and had been ordered in terms of the powers conferred by relevant provisions of statutes. The petitioner in that case sought leave to appeal against the order of Service Tribunal on the ground that the order of retirement had been inflicted on him as a punishment and, therefore, opportunity of showing cause against the proposed retirement ought to have been granted. The argument was repelled and it was held that WAPDA is competent to remove or retire any person from its service in the exercise of powers conferred on it by section 17 (1-A) of the above said Act.
The facts of the cases of the present petitioners are not on a better footing than that of Muhammad Naseem v. Water and Power Development Authority and another (Civil Petition No, K- 216 of 1979) cited above. After the arguments were closed, Mian Dilawar Mahmud, Advocate, learned counsel for one of the petitioners in a note submitted that while legislating subsection (1- C) of section 17, the Legislature was well aware of the earlier part of the section i,e, subsection (1-B) of section 17 which lays down that every person holding a post under WAPDA shall be deemed to be a civil servant {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1966 SC 253 (2) PLD 1973 Quetta 14 (3)1' L D 1969 SC 407 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and so whosoever would be aggrieved with any order of the Authority would be able to seek relief by moving the Service Tribunal. His contention is that the predominant intention of ouster of jurisdiction mentioned in section 17 (1-C) relates to Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance or the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1962 but the words, 'Tribunal or Commission etc.' mentioned therein are not meant to exclude the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal which is specifically mentioned, in section 17 (1-B). According to his submission in the note (contrary to the earlier submissions made at the Bar) provisions of sections 17 (1-B) and (1-C) are reconcilable and so the WAPDA employees have a remedy under section 17 (1-B) to move the Service Tribunal in respect of the impugned orders. He has prayed that the writ petitions may be disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may move the Service Tribunal, and some time may also be given to them to do the same. The view of the learned counsel does not seem to be correct. The bare reading of section 17 (1-A) and (1-C) does not lend support to the above contentions. However, we do not want to pass any judgment on this contention at this stage. If the learned counsel or any of the petitioners is of the view that the grievances of the petitioners are justifiable before the Service Tribunal, they may move, if so advised. No such direction is called for when any remedy/remedies are available under the law. Be that as it may, as observed above, we do not want to give any judgment on this point, suffice to say that no direction is called for seeking remedy which is considered to be available.
' For the reasons enumerated above, we do not see any merit in these petitions. The same are dismissed, with no orders as to costs.