' FAIZ MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-The Governor of the North-West Frontier Province has by Notification No, S.
0. L. 1-14, dated 10th March, 1984, declared that the minimum rate of wages payable to adult unskilled workers in all industrial undertakings situated in the Province shall be as specified in the Schedule appended to the Notification. This Notification was issued under section 6 of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (hereinafter called 1961-Ordinance), after of course observing the formalities and following the procedure prescribed therein. Employers of the industrial undertakings affected by this Notification were not happy over it. Their grievance was that in presence of the minimum rate of wages for such works mentioned in the Schedule appended to the West Pakistan Minimum Wages for Unskilled Workers Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called 1969 Ordinance) the exercise specified in 1961-Ordinance and conducted by the Provincial Government and its functionaries was of no legal consequence, hence void. They maintained that the said Notification is not 'worth the paper on which it has been printed, and consequently would not make them liable to pay the rate of wages fixed thereby. Their efforts to persuade the authorities concerned to accept their point of view in this regard proved ineffective. Consequently, the Sarhad Industrial Employers Association, a registered body under Act XXI of 1860, which represents the Employers concerned, have by this Constitutional petition challenged the said Notification as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Though in the Constitutional petition many grounds were taken up to strike at the impugned Notification, but M. Zahoorul Hag, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instruction received by him from his clients, pressed only one ground in his arguments before us and that is that 1969-Ordinance being a valid and subsisting law, having overriding provisions, while remaining in the filed and containing in the Schedule appended thereto the minimum rate of wages payable to adult unskilled workers would not permit the Provincial Government or its functionaries to have recourse to 1961-Ordinance in order to fix thereunder the minimum rate of wages for adult unskilled workers in respect of industrial undertakings functioning in the Province.
He contended that the exercise conducted by the Provincial Government and its functionaries under 1961-Ordinance was an exercise in futility and brought no legal effect which could become binding on the Employers sought to be affected thereby. The learned counsel further contended that 1961.Ordinance was a law of general nature and 1969-Ordinance being a special law dealing with only unskilled workers, containing as it did in its section 6 overriding provisions, prevailed over it, and so long as 1969-Ordinance remained on the Statute Book, 1961-Ordinance would remain dormant and inaccessible to the Provincial Government for fixing the minimum rate of wages for unskilled workers more than what was specified in the Schedule appended to 1969-Ordinance. He also drew our attention to section 6 and the Schedule to 1969-Ordinance. The learned Advocate- General representing the respondent, however, argued that despite the fact that 1969-Ordinance was on the Statute Book as an existing law, its provisions and the minimum rate of wages specified in the appended thereto would not defeat the impugned Notification as it did not violate the provisions of section 3 of that law.
3. From the arguments of the learned counsel it appears that the controversy between the parties relates to the effect produced by section 3 and section 6 of 1969-Ordinance and the Schedule appended thereto. For facility of reference we would reproduce hereunder the said provisions of law : "3. Minimum wages in commercial and industrial establishments.- Every unskilled worker, other than an apprentice, employed in a commercial or industrial establishment situated in an area specified in column 1 of the Schedule, shall be paid wages at a rate not lower than the minimum wages per month specified against such area in column 2 of the Schedule ' Provided that where an employer provides housing accommodation to a worker, he may deduct from the wages of such a worker, an, amount not exceeding that specified in column 3 of the Schedule, and where the employer provides a worker with transport to and from the place of work, he may deduct from the wages of such a worker an amount not exceeding that specified in column 4 of the Schedule.
"6. Effect of laws, orders, agreements etc., inconsistent with this Ordinance. -The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law or in any order or notification made or issued under any such law or in any award, agreement or contract of service : ' Provided that where under any such law, order, notification, award, agreement or contract of service, other than an agreement declared to be void under section 5, an unskilled worker is entitled to wages which are higher than the minimum wages required to be paid under this Ordinance, he shall continue to be paid such higher wages. {{TABLE}} SCHEDULE [See Section 31 ...110 Areas Rate of Deductions Deductions minimum wages for for pro- per month, providing viding housing transport. accommo- dation, 1 a .....T 3 4 Rs, Rs, Rs, Karachi District 140.00 p.m.
12.50 p.m.
5.00 p.m. Industrial Areas 125.00 p.m.
10.00 p.m.
2.50 p.m. Other Areas 115.00 p.m.
6.50 p.m.
1.00 p.m." {{TABLE}} It is undisputable that 1961-Ordinance is a law of general nature in the specified field and 1969- Ordinance is a special law in the sense that it covers only one category of workers and also applies to specified commercial and industrial establishments. We also do not dispute the principle that the special law prevails over the general law where there is inconsistency in A their provisions and the two laws cannot co-exist. The question, however, is whether or not this principle was attracted to the facts of this case. In order to find out answer to this question we would revert to section 3 of 1969-Ordinance reproduced herein before. The language employed therein, especially the words "shall be paid wages at a rate not lower than the minimum wages per month specified against such area in column 2 of the Schedule", in our opinion, admit of no ambiguity and are capable of B only one interpretation and that is that if the wages fixed under any other law, award, agreement or contract of service fall short of the minimum wages fixed in the Schedule appended to this law then that would be in contravention of the provisions of 1969-Ordinance ; both sections 3 and 6 thereof, and would, therefore, not be binding on the parties who may be involved in the controversy. But if such wages exceed threat of wages specified in the Schedule to 1969- Ordinance, then the question of contravention of the provisions of this law would not arise, and consequently, sections 3 and 6 of 1969-Ordinance would stand excluded from application. We are of the view that 1961-Ordinance and 1969-Ordinance are not at conflict with each other, nor are they mutually destructive. Both the laws] can co-exist.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned Notification, wherein wages higher than those specified in the Schedule to 1969-Ordinance have been fixed, is unassailable. There is, therefore, no merit in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. We would, however, make no order as to costs.