SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.---Muhammad Yunus and Sons have filed this appeal, by leave of Court, against the judgment dated 21-5-1995 rendered by Lahore High Court dismissing his Intra- Court Appeal No,585 of 1994 filed against dismissal of Writ Petition No,4747 of 1994.
2. Pakistan Engineering Council constituted under Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 had called upon Muhammad Yunus and Sons to get them registered in accordance with provisions of the above Act as well as bye-laws Nos.3 and 4 of the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Laws, 1987. This demand of the Council was challenged through writ petition on the ground that the registration of appellant was not required under the Act, being not within the jurisdiction of the Council under section 8 of the Act and further that the bye-laws 3 and 4 are ultra vires the main Act, section 25 whereof does not authorize the Council to make bye-laws of such a nature.
3. The copy of writ petition on file at page 24 would reveal that the appellant being a firm had admitted itself to be a contractor/operator for Ministry of Water and Power. It. Sufficiently executes the nature of work defined as professional engineering work under section 2(k) of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. A similar matter had come before this Court in Pakistan Engineering Council v. Afzal Anwar Associates (1995 SCM R 802), where it stands settled that with reference to the purposes and objects of the Act, Pakistan Engineering Council cannot perform its functions under section 8 of the Act satisfactorily and appropriately unless it is capable of regulating the activities of all those who undertake professional engineering work and therefore, not only that the profession of engineering but also professional engineering work has been included within the scope and purpose of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. With these observations this Court has already settled that in order to achieve the purposes and objects of the Act and in order to the "performance of all other functions connected with, or ancillary or incidental to" the functions given in section 8 of the Act (section 8(1)), the Council has the power under section 25 of the Act to make bye-laws for "carrying out the purposes of this Act". It may be reiterated that the authority to make bye-laws under subsection (1) of section 25 for carrying out the purposes the Act is independent of the powers given in subsection (2) of section 25. We respectfully agree with the findings given in the case of Afzal Anwar Associates (1995 SCM R 802).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the case of Fida Hussain v. The Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad and another OLD 1995 SC 701) and argued that as held by this Court in Fida Hussain's case "Pakistan Engineering Council is vested with the functions to regulate the persons qualified to practice as professional engineers and consulting engineers and not persons who are employed in the Government or semi-Government organizations". It was under this apparent conflict between the two verdicts that leave was granted in the instant case so that the two findings are harmonized and so that any inconsistency is minimized.
5. We have gone through the judgment in Fida Hussain's case and that of Afzal Anwar Associates carefully and observe that practically there is no inconsistency of views. The case of Fida Hussain was based totally on different premises, in that, Fida Hussain was an Overseer/Sub-Engineer in Northern Area PWD whose promotion was denied because the Engineering Council did not recognize his qualification. This Court in Fida Hussain's case settled the issue to the effect that for purposes of promotion and concerning policy thereof the final authority vested with the Government and not the Council. It was held that any condition suggested by the Council could not operate as an impediment in the way of someone's promotion. It was clearly held:
(a) Pakistan Engineering Council is vested with functions to regulate persons qualified to practice as professional engineers and consulting engineers and not persons who were employed in the Government or semi-Government organizations. Where Government had employed any professional engineer for performing professional engineering work as envisaged in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act, provisions of the Act would be attracted and not otherwise." (The emphasis is improvised).
The underlined portion of the above verdict would clinch the matter once for all to the effect that where professional engineering work as envisaged in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act is involved, the provisions of the Act would be attracted and not otherwise. In the instant case as well as in the case of Afzal Anwar Associates (1995 SCM R 802) the material thing involved was professional engineering work as defined in section 2(k) of the Act.
6. The two rulings discussed above do not hold any contradictory view and thus, following the verdict in the case of Afzal Anwar Associates (1995 SCM R 802) the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.