PAKISTAN GLASS INDUSTRIES LABOUR WELFARE UNION, HYDERABAD Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO.VI, HYDERABAD
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated 13‑9‑1981 of the Sind High Court; whereby a Constitutional Petition filed by a defunct Workers' Union (the petitioner/appellant) calling in question the cancellation of its registration under section 10(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claimed that it was the Workers' Labour Union and the bargaining agent in Pakistan Glass Industries Limited (respondent No.3). The said concern was 'closed down' under Standing Order 11‑A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It happened in 1974. The registration of the petitioner/appellant was cancelled in 1976 on the ground that it had ceased to exist, after the respondent No.3, was closed.
3. An application has been filed by the respondent‑side asserting that more than a decade having passed since the aforenoted orders were passed and by now the Union has undoubtedly in fact ceased to exist and that in any case no elections having been held since the 'dissolution', in law also there is no Union in existence. We have also noticed that the sole petitioner/appellant herein is the defunct /dissolved erstwhile Union. No effort has been made so far to bring on record the ex‑workers who might have kept alive the proceedings as aggrieved persons.
4. These points have not been rebutted before us in so far as the factual aspects are concerned. But the learned counsel for the ex‑Union has contended that in case this appeal is not allowed, workers would be deprived of large sums of money which were due to them from the respondent No.3 at the time of its closure.
5. We do not agree. The apprehension is unfounded. The rights of the workers in their capacity as such are fully protected even after the closure. The High Court has also in its judgment preserved) those rights and the respondent No.3 has not challenged that part of the decision. It is also stated at the bar by both the sides that the workers did submit their claim/s. That being so, the same would have to be settled by the authorities concerned. The workers would not be allowed to suffer for the fact that Union is no more in existence.
6. In the light of the foregoing discussion and observations, the leave granting order is withdrawn and the leave to appeal petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
7. M.I./P‑34/S Order accordingly.