SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order, dated 20-1-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the order of the petitioner-authority removing respondent No.1 from service was declared to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. It was also declared that he was entitled to emoluments for the intervening period.
2. Respondent No.1 was serving as a Line Superintendent Grade-II in the office of the Chief Engineer (Electricity) WAPDA, Sargodha Division. By an office order dated 19-11-1977 the petitioner-authority removed him from service in pursuance of its powers under section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water And Power Development Authority Act, 1958 on payment of 30 days pay in lieu of notice.
Respondent No.1 challenged this order before the Punjab Labour Court. The said Court set aside the order and directed the petitioner-authority to reinstate respondent. No.1 in service with back benefits. The petitioner-- authority preferred an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal but without any success. On 29-12-1979 the West Pakistan Water And Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979 came into force. It introduced a new subsection by way of subsection (1-C) in the parent Act. This subsection reads as follows:- "Any order of removal or termination of service passed by the Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1-A), shall not be called in question in any proceedings taken under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), or the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (LIII of 1952), or under any law for the time being in force, before any Court, Tribunal or Commission and any order passed by any Court, Tribunal or Commission after the thirtieth day of September, 1975, and before the coming into force o. The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 1979, setting aside or mod' in or declaring an order o the Authority to be void and o no effect, shall stand vacated."
Taking advantage of the portion underlined above, the petitioner-- authority on 5-1-1980 made another office order and relieved respondent No.1 of his duties with immediate effect. Respondent No.1 challenged this order in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but it was dismissed on 16-6-1982 on the ground of competency. According to respondent No.1 he has filed a petition in this Court for special leave to appeal but it has not yet been disposed of.
3. However, that may be, on 25-11-1984 respondent No. 1 filed another writ petition in the High Court challenging his removal from service by the petitioner-authority. He alleged that he was a confirmed employee of the Provincial Government when his service was transferred to the petitioner-authority; as such, he was merely on deputation to the petitioner-authority and for this reason the latter was not competent to remove him from service. He made the Provincial Government a party to his petition. The High Court called for the comments of the Provincial Government. In its comments the Provincial Government admitted that respondent No.1 was a Government employee and had been transferred to serve under the petitioner-Authority as a deputationist. Consequently he could not be removed from service by the petitioner-authority. It was also stated that the Provincial Government was prepared to take respondent No.1 on duty from the day he rejoined the concerned department.
4. In view of the position taken up by the Provincial Government the High Curt set aside the order of the petitioner-authority and directed it to pay the emoluments to respondent No.1 till he rejoined his parent department.
5.Two important questions arise in this petition for consideration, namely: -- "(i) respondent No.1 was admittedly seeking relief from the High Court on the basis of his terms and conditions of service; that being so, the question arises whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain his petition under its constitutional jurisdiction; and,
(ii) under section 17(1-A) the petitioner-authority could inter alia remove from service not only such persons who had been employed by it but also those who were serving under it; even though respondent No.1 was a permanent employee of the Provincial Government he was admittedly serving under the petitioner --authority when the order of his removal from service was made; in the circumstances a question arises whether there was any legal basis with the High Court for declaring that the order of removal made by the petitioner-authority was without jurisdiction and that respondent No.1 was entitled to emoluments till he rejoined his parent department."
For the consideration of these questions we would grant leave to appeal to the petitioner-authority.
In the meanwhile the operation of the order of the High Court is suspended. This will however not prevent the Provincial Government from taking back respondent No.1 in service. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with liberty to the parties to add such documents as they may wish to add.