The petitioner has approached the Commission as an Authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder, praying for re-instatement is service with full back-benefits I need not reproduce the respective contentions of the parties regarding tic merits of the case because the learned counsel for the respondent vide his application dated 7-7-76 has raised an objection that the respondent is a taken-over Industry regulated and maintained by the Federal Government That the applicant of the petitioner was incompetent under Articles 6 and 8 of the President's Order No.1 of 1972. That the services of petitioner were terminated by the Managing Director of the respondent-Company and that this at of the Managing Director was not justiciable as held in PLJ 1975 Lah. 289, hence he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
2. The learned counsel, for the petitioner was made to submit his reply to the application who has contended in his reply that section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 had overriding effect and Articles 6 and 8 of the President's Order No. I of '1972 did not apply to the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the relevant provisions of law referred to by the parties have been carefully gone through by me. Admittedly the respondent- Company is a taken-over industry and is being regulated and maintained by the Federal Government The Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 was enacted by the Central Legislature while President's Order No.1 of 1972 was also promul--gated, by the Central Authority of the Government represented by the President of Pakistan, which order was subsequently duly validated (the learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show that the President's Order No.1 of 1972 has not been subsequently validated and as such is no longer on the Statute Book). Hence I am of the considered view that both the enactments are the creation of the Central Legislative Authority and are on the Statute Book and that President's Order No.1 being subsequent in the can be justifiably presumed to have been promulgated by the President being quite aware of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 which was already on the Statute Book, and as such President's Order No. I of 1972 is to prevail and override the Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte--nance) Act, 1952, particularly whop section 3 of President's Order No.1 Is as under :- "3. Order to override other laws.-This order shall have effect not--withstanding anything contained in the Provisional Constitution Order or any other law for the the being in force or in any agreement, contract, memorandum or articles.
Section 6 of President's Order No.1 of 1972 reads as under; --- "6. Employees to continue in service.-Unless in any particular case the Managing Director otherwise directs, all persons employed in, by or for the purpose of the business of the establishment by whomsoever appointed or managed, shall continue in their respective employments on the same remuneration and other conditions of service as were applicable to them immediately before the appointment of the Manag--ing Director of that establishment." and section 8 thereof is as follows :- "8. Bar of jurisdiction.-(1) No Court, including the Supreme Court and a High Court, shall call in question, or permit to be called in question, any provision of this order or of any rule or order made or anything done or my action taken or purporting to be made, done or taken thereunder.
(2) No Court, including the Supreme and a High Court, shall grant any injunction or make any order, nor any such Court shall entertain any proceedings in relation to anything done or intended or purporting to be done under this order."
That being the legal position, I find no reason to disagree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the present petition is incompetent under Articles 6 and 8 of the President's Order No.1 of 1972, the respondent being a taken-over industry regulated and maintained by the Federal Government and the services of the petitioner having been terminated by the Managing Director, which at of the Managing Director is not justiciable as held in PLJ 1975 Lah. 289. I have gone carefully through the ruling mentioned above which lends support to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. In view of the above discussion, I am constrained to dismiss the present petition, being incompetent and the order of the Managing Director of the REPCO, Rawalpindi being not justiciable in view of Articles 6 and 8 of President's Order No.1 of 1972.