' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---These two Constitutional petitions involve common question of law and facts; therefore, the same are disposed of by this single judgment.
2. In Constitutional Petition No,D-438 of 1998, the case of petitioner briefly stated, is that they are one of eight (8) trade unions of the establishment of respondent No,2 with unionized 11600 workers and other employees including officers in addition thereto and that the said establishment is managed and controlled by a Board of Directors. The Respondent No,3, a privatization commission constituted by the respondent No,1, is bent upon to sell its assets and operation in terms of preliminary notice published in Daily Dawn, dated 27-3-1998 which is to the effect to finalized the programme of privatization of respondent No,2 establishment. It is stated that the privatization of respondent No,2 would be harmful to the workers, employees, and to the national interest, if allowed believably to foreigners. Petitioners have, therefore, prayed, inter alia, that-the said public notice, dated 27-3-1998 be declared without lawful authority and the respondents Nos.1 and 3 be also restrained from retrenching the workers/employees or transferring their services to any other operator.
3. In Constitutional Petition No,D-439 of 1998, precisely sated, the case of petitioners is that they are labour leaders of People, Workers Union, Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and are representatives of employees thereof. It is stated that the employees of said corporation and others were alerted when a news report appeared in newspaper Daily Dawn, dated 30-11-1997 that Government were negotiating a joint venture deal with South Korea, Daewoo Corporation to sell 50% of share of said corporation for paltry amount of money and subsequently a notice of Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan was published in same newspaper on 27-3-1998 to sell 51% of K.E.S.C., equity interest, which is without approval of Board of its Directors and also against its interest and, in case the said corporation is so sold to foreign/private buyer, they would increase rates of electricity affecting the consumers. It is also the case of the petitioners that the privatization of said corporation is mala fide and would mean downsizing and removal of its employees depriving them of their fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Petitioners in this petition have made similar prayers as are made in the first mentioned Constitutional petition.
4. Both the abovementioned Constitutional petitions proceeded together in pursuance of an order passed on 17.9.1998 in C.P. No, D-439 of 1998.
5. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 in C.P. No,438 of 1998 have placed their submissions in writing.
According to these submissions, it is precisely stated that Government of Pakistan is major share holder of respondent No,2 to the extent of 76% in its own name and also through other owned and controlled institutions namely State Life Corporation, Investment Corporation of Pakistan and National Investment Trust. It is averred that no sale of assets for operation of respondent No,2 is contemplated but, the respondent No,3, Privatization Commission intends to divest 51% of issued shares of respondent No,2 and that also out of those held by aforementioned organizations.
According to these respondents, this exercise is being contemplated as the administrative measures to improve the management could not attain the required degree of efficiency and this financial losses kept rising. Further, the case of these respondents is that the proposed act of privatization is aimed at with sole intent to better the supply of electricity to consumers in the city of Karachi and its surroundings without any detriment being caused to the respondent No,2 and to its employees and workers, and that the privatization is rather expected to improve working conditions of its employees. It is stated that the process of privatization has been initiated under a lawful mandate and directions of Federal Government and that it would not mean to hand over management and control of respondent No,2 to foreigners since bids have been invited from interested parties regardless of their nationality.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners in both these petitions filed their written statement/arguments.
Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in Civil Petition No,D-438 of 1998 and for the respondents Nos.1, 3 and 5 in Civil Petition No,D-439 of 1998 has also filed his written arguments.
Nonetheless, on 13-5-1999 when the petitions were still fixed for Katcha Peshi, learned counsel for the parties, sought time on the ground that there was possibility of a compromise in the matter.
They, however, could not reach a compromise and the matter was heard further accordingly, on 21-6-1999. On this day, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.P. No,D-438 of 1998 chose to remain absent.
7. In this written statement learned counsel for the petitioner in C.P. No . D-438 of 1998, while dilating on background of K.E.S.C. Expressed that in principles petitioner does not oppose the policy of privatization. He has, however, criticised the privatization policy by stating that it must promote the following objective:--
(A) National Security.
(B) Constitutional guarantees provided to the federating Units.
(C) Welfare of the public and particularly the consumers.
(D) Proper utilisation of the proceeds of privatization.
(E) Strengthening of the economic structure of the country. (Public Private partnership).
(F) Protection of the interest of the workforce.
(G) Post privatization regulatory scheme.
(H) Protection of the environment and general health.
' He further submitted that privatization policy should also satisfy the following:--
(a) Transparency;
(b) Obtaining the maximum price; and
(c) Equal access to all to participate in the privatization process.
' He has placed reliance on case law reported in AIR 1992 All. 88, 1996 MLD 705; 1994 MLD 1887; 1996 SCMR 543; 1997 SCMR 641 and PLD 1998 Karachi 416.
8. In his written as well as in oral arguments learned counsel for petitioners in C.P. No,D-439 of 1998 did not seriously oppose privatization.
' He mainly asked for protection of legal rights of workers relating to their job in case of privatization taking place. He also referred to case-law reported in PLD 1996 Kar. 27 and PLD 1997 SC 334.
9. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 in Civil Petition No,D-438 of 1998 and respondents Nos.1, 3 and 5 in Civil Petition No,D-439 of 1998 submitted that there is no cavil with any objectives of privatization and their implementation as are referred to by the petitioners in their written submissions in Civil Petition No,D-438 of 1998 and assured that process of privatization shall be conducted in a fair and transparent manner. He vehemently dismissed the apprehension of the petitioners that the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation would be handed over to the foreign buyers. According to him, anybody coming up to the requisite qualification as per impugned preliminary notice would be free to take part in the process of privatization. Reinforcing his submissions, learned counsel highlighted the policy behind such process, and elaborated that it is aimed at to promote the productivity of power generation, raise earnings, reduce tariff, bring down the subsidies paid by public exchequer, develop capital market by stimulating inflow of foreign investment into the country, besides making the corporation viable. According to him, the industrialized countries like U.K., France and Germany have privatized their state owned properties like Airlines, Railways and other. Lastly, while disclosing that privatization has been approved by C.C.I., he submitted that KESC, is public listed company and there can be no embargo on its privatization through public auction.
10. It appears that in fact there is no dispute between the parties as far as the privatization and the objectives of its policy as identified above are concerned. The petitioners in Civil Petition No,D-438 of 1998, however, seem to be concerned about transparency of privatization, procurement of maximum price and equal access to all to participate in the auction; whereas, the petitioner in Civil Petition No,D-439 of 1998 chiefly demand protection of interest of workers. Suffice it is say that learned counsel for respondents has assured that the privatization shall take place in fair and transparent manner and that there would be no clog on obtaining best possible price on its privatization through publication implying thereby that much care will be taken to get as much price as is possible. It is further expressed that it would be simply speculative that the Corporation shall be handed over to the foreign buyers. We have also examined impugned "Preliminary Notice" published in Daily newspaper Dawn, dated 27-3-1998 and find nothing therein that the invitation has been restricted only to aliens. Silent features as reflected from the relevant portion of the said Preliminary Notice inviting the information are reproduced below:- "The Government of Pakistan ('GoP') through the Privatization Commission intends to sell upto 51% of its equity interest in the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation ('K.E.S.C.') to a strategic buyer who would also be given management control. The GoP has appointed the Union Bank of Switzerland as the financial advisor (the 'Financial Advisor') for this transaction....
' Request for preliminary information on K.E.S.C. By interested parties (Companies and/or consortia) is hereby invited which should focus on and include brief details on the following criteria. Such requests must be submitted to the Financial Advisor (on the address/telefax number provided below) by close of business on April 10, 1998 either by mail or fax....
' The Government of Pakistan, in its sole discretion, reserves the right not to respond to any such request for prelimianry or other information based on a review of the information provided by any interest party."
It is evident from the above preliminary notice that Government of Pakistan through the Privatization Commission intends to sell up to 51% of its equity interest in KESC to the strategic buyers who would be given management and control. The intended disposal of the shares is patently not restricted to the foreigners. Learned counsel for respondents No,3. In this written submission has also expressed in categorical terms that respondent No,3 is not acting in any manner that may be prejudical to the intest of respondent No,2, its employees or customers and to the country, too. Therefore, there seems to be nothing but false apprehensions on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances, an exercise to discuss plethora of case law referred to by learned counsel for parties shall be serve no useful purpose being an academic discussion.
11. The Constitutional Petitions, therefore, seem to be patently misconceived and the same are dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications.