' SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal assails the order of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 5-12-2007 in Labour Revision Application No,138 of 2005. The petitioners are the employees of Messrs Karam Ceramics and claim to be the office-bearers of Messrs Karam Ceramics Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Union") assail the order, dated 21-9- 2005 passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12, according to the record, were workers/employees of Messrs Karam Ceramics as well as office-bearers of the Union.
They ceased to be the members of Union as they defaulted in payment of their monthly subscriptions for the months of May, June, July and August, 2005. Subsequently, they were dismissed by the management vide order, dated 25-6-2005. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 individually challenged their removal from service before Sindh Labour Court No,III at Karachi, who vide order, dated 31-3-2007 dismissed the same holding that the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 were neither dismissed illegally nor any vested right guaranteed by the Constitution was infringed by the management. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the Labour Court, respondents Nos.2, 8 and 5 to 12 have assailed the same by way of appeal under section 48(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance") and all the aforesaid appeals numbering ten are pending for disposal.
2. During pendency of the aforesaid appeals respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 filed application purporting to be an application under section 48(3) of the Ordinance. A Single Bench of the High Court of Sindh Karachi took up the hearing of the application under section 48(3) of the Ordinance and decided the same vide its impugned order. It will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion from the order of the High Court of Sindh:-- "It is in the interest of parties as well as in the interest of employers that a popular and democratic Union should be given a fair chance as a bargaining agent and for that purpose. When two sets of office-bearers are claiming to be in existence, in all fairness an opportunity should be given to both to contest a fair election. I hereby direct the Registrar, Trade Unions, to hold fresh election of the Union within two weeks from the receipt of this order on a day convenient to the labourers as well as to the employers. The membership of the applicants is restored subject to payment of arrears and they are allowed to participate in the elections."
3. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Shahanshah Hussain, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners and respondent No,2 Haji Noor Muhammad who was the President of the Union before cancellation of his membership and dismissal from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently assailed the order of the Sindh High Court, Karachi and submitted that it is in grave and serious violation of the provisions and principles of law, propriety and logic, elaborating his arguments he submitted that in spite of the facts that the Single Judge had information of the .Pendency of ten service appeals of the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 yet he allowed them to participate in fresh election to be held by the Registrar, Trade Unions on the direction of the Sindh High Court, Karachi notwithstanding the fact that elections for electing the office-bearers of Messrs Karam Ceramics Employees Union had been duly held by the Registrar,. Trade Unions in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and the petitioners had been declared as office-bearers therein. He further submitted that the impugned order has virtually decided the service appeals of respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 while issuing directions to the Registrar, Trade Unions to allow them to participate in the fresh elections which clearly draws as inference that they have been reinstated in the service, 'which in fact they have not been, as their appeals are still pending adjudication before the Sindh High Court.
5. Respondent No,2, Haji Noor Muhammad was unable to controvert the arguments advanced by Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners. He failed to point out any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
6. The High Court while disposing of the application under section 48(3) of the Ordinance completely ignored the material facts which if taken into consideration would have never allowed it to pass the aforesaid impugned order. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 in their application/information under section 48(3) of the Ordinance in para. 4 categorically stated that they were removed from service whereafter they ceased to be, the workers/employees of Messrs Karam Ceramics cases were filed by them under section 46 of the Ordinance which were dismissed by Sindh Labour Court No,III, Karachi vide order, dated 31-3-2007. Against the stated order aforesaid 10 respondents have filed appeals under section 48(1) of the Ordinance in the High Court which even today are pending adjudication. Had the High Court taken into consideration these facts it would not have proceeded with the information/application under section 48(3) of the Ordinance and ought to have directed the parties to get the appeals decided before venturing on further litigation. It is not conceivable that all these facts were not brought to the notice of the High Court and it is surprising that how the High Court had come to the conclusion directing the Registrar, Trade Unions to hold fresh elections wherein respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 were allowed to participate for electing the C.B.A. When they are not even in the service of Messrs Karam Ceramics. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has virtually decided the appeals of respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 in their favour carries weight and we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be sustained from any angle.
7. Accordingly, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The observation made and directions given by the High Court therein stand cancelled respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 12 cannot be deemed to be the workers of Messrs Karam Ceramics until their appeals are decided in their favour. As regard the case of respondent No,4, he will be at liberty to pursue any remedy, if available, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.