2001 PLP 692 (PLC)

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑Petitioner, Muhammad Safdar, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 30‑8‑1999 of a learned D.B. High Court of Sindh, whereby his Petition bearing No.D‑471 of 1994 was dismissed.

1. The petitioner was employed with the respondent No.2, Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Limited, as a worker and served in said capacity for seven years. On 10‑2‑1992, show‑cause notice was issued to him as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him‑ for instigating the workers to leave the department before close of working time, as it amounted to an act of subversive of discipline. On 1‑4‑1992, his services were terminated. He approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance by filing an application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, which was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Appeal preferred against said order was dismissed on the same ground by learned Sindh Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed C.P. No.D‑471 of 1994, which was also dismissed.

2. The petitioner had challenged the Notification, dated 17th December, 1991 issued by Labour and Transport, Government of Sindh, which reads as under:‑‑ "No. SO(COORD) L&T‑12‑26/91.‑‑‑In exercise of power conferred by section 8 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (Ordinance VI of 1968), the Government of Sindh is pleased to exempt the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and Security Papers Limited, Karachi from the provisions of Standing Orders 1, 2, 2‑A, 8, 11‑A, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Schedule, of the said Ordinance for a further period of six months with effect from 94‑1992. "

3. It is pertinent to point out that the aforesaid Notification, which was extended from time to time, ultimately was withdrawn vide Notification No.SO(COORD) L&T‑12‑28/91 dated 7th January, 1994.

4. The grievance of the petitioner with reference to above Notification is that section 8 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which empowers the Government to exempt any industrial or commercial establishment from the provisions of that Ordinance, is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Said section reads as under:‑‑ "Power to exempt.‑‑‑Government tray, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose, by Notification in the official Gazette, exempt any industrial or commercial establishment or class of such establishments from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance."

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that section 8, (ibid), does not lay down any guideline for selecting the establishment in respect of which a Notification, as contemplated by said section, is issued. Learned counsel also argued that the respondent No.1, Government of Sindh, had issued said Notification at the instance of respondent No.2, which was interested in eliminating such workmen, who were interested in the welfare of the workmen employed with respondent No.2. Learned counsel also argued that said section is violative the Article 25 of the Constitution., which guarantees to all citizens of Pakistan equality before !he law and equal protection of law.

6. In the case reported as Government of Sindh through Additional Chief Secretary v. Azizullah Memon and 16 others (PLL 1993 SC 341), this Court interpreted Article 25 of the Constitution and observed as under:‑ "Following are the principles for application of equality clause' of the Constitution:‑‑‑ (i) That equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike; (ii) that reasonable classification is permissible but it must be founded on reasonable distinction or reasonable basis; (iii) that different laws can validly be enacted for different sexes, persons in different age groups, persons having different financial standings, and persons accused of heinous crimes; (iv) that no standard of universal application to test reasonableness of a classification can be laid down as what may be reasonable in a particular set of circumstances may be le in the other set of circumstances; that a law applying to one person or one class of persons may be ,Constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for it, but a classification which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Article 25; (vi) that equal protection of law means that all persons equally placed be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed; (vii) that in order to make a classification reasonable ‑it should be based:‑‑ (a) on an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out; (b) that the differentia must have rational nexus to the object ,ought to be achieved by such classification.

7. Mr. Naraindas C. Motiani, learned Advocate ‑on‑Record for the respondents, contended that section 8, (ibid) is not violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. He also argued that in the case reported as Nisar Ahmad and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (1999 SCMR 1338).. Section 1(4)(c) Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Ordinance NoX of 1998 was considered with reference to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial 'Employment (.Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and it was held that exclusion of abovementioned two Ordinances to the employees of WAPDA had not violated any fundamental rights. The impugned Ordinance had denied the benefit of Standing Orders Ordinance and I.R.O. to the employees of WAPDA. It was held that even otherwise the above Ordinances were not applicable to all the workers/employees inasmuch as the first proviso to clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance excluded the application of the provisions of the same to the industrial arid Commercial Establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline were applicable to the workmen employed therein.

8. Adverting to the provisions of section 8, it is noted that the' Provincial Government has unlimited powers of granting exemption from all or any of the provisions of the Ordinance by issuing Notification in the official Gazette. The respondent No.2, in fact, deals with sovereign functions of State and is engaged in printing of currency notes, Government Bonds, Securities stamps and other valuables, which are necessary for the economic stability. In order to see that it runs smoothly and uninterrupted the Legislature, in its wisdom, authorised the Government to exempt from any of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Learned counsel for the petitioner, though argued that section 8, (ibid), is against the Article 25 of the Constitution, but not assigned any solid reason to substantiate his contention. Reasonable classification is always permissible under Article 25 of the Constitution. In fact, the main grievance of the petitioner is not against this section, but it is against the Notification, dated 17th December, 1991,which was withdrawn.

9. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K, S‑99/S Petition dismissed,