1. AJMAL MIAN, CJ.--This petition is directed against the two orders dated 30-5-1979, passed by the learned VI Labour Court, Hyderabad and dated 24-10-1979, passed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that there used to be a department of WAPDA in 1963 by the name of Machine Pool Organization (hereinafter referred to as the M.P.O.).
3. Respondent 3, which was a union in respect of the employees working in M.P.O. raised certain Charter of Demands and thereafter served a strike notice on 8-3-1963 under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). It is the case of the petitioner that after the conciliation proceedings failed, the respondent 3 instead of referring the dispute to the then Industrial Court under the provisions of the Ordinance resorted to strike. Thereupon, the M.P.O. filed an application which was registered as Industrial dispute No, 8 of 1963 alongwith an application under section 2 of the Ordinance for prohibition of the strike on the ground that WAPDA was a public utility service. In consequence of the above applications the above strike was declared as ilk gal and the workmen were directed to resume the duty. Respondent 3, being aggrieved by the above order, filed Writ Petition No,392/1963, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 24-5- 1963. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter except 69 workers, the other workers resumed the duties. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 69 workers continued to remain on strike illegally. After that, respondent 3 again served a strike notice dated 19-7-1963 raising the demand of reinstatement of the above 69 workmen who remained on illegal strike in spite of the above order of the Labour Court and whose services were terminated after charge sheeting them and also demanded interim relief of 10 percent. The above notice was followed by the conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation Officer Hyderabad which again failed on 30-7-1963. Thereafter, the respondent 3 filed an application as Industrial Dispute N0.15/1963, under section 5(5) of the Ordinance before the Industrial Court of West Pakistan Karachi, which resulted into an award dated 15-10-1965 in favour of respondent 3, whereby the above demands of respondent 3 were accepted.
4. Thereupon MPO filed Misc. Appeal No,1/1966, in the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi Bench, which was allowed by a judgment dated 17-9-1968, and the case was remanded to the Labour Court with the direction to decide on the three questions framed therein. It seems that after the above remand order, the matter proceeded before the Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, which by its order dated 28-2-1976 dismissed respondent 3's above application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. It may be mentioned here that in the meantime MPO was reconstituted in the form of Mechanized Construction Company of Pakistan Limited w,e,f, 1-9-1974. Respondent 3 filed an appeal before the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal against the above order dated 28-2- 1976, which was allowed by an order dated 23-10-1978 and the case was again remanded to the Labour Court with the direction to decide the matter on merits. After that the Labour Court gave an award dated 30-5-1979, accepting respondent 3's above demand of reinstatement and rejecting its demand for payment of 10 percent interim relief. Against the above order, both the petitioner and respondent 3 filed appeals which were dismissed by the above common impugned order dated 24-10-1979. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
5. Though respondent 3 has been served with the notice of hearing, but nobody has turned up on his behalf. It may be stated that on the previous dates of hearing also nobody appeared for the above respondent 3. We have, therefore, heard Mr. M. Naimur Rehman, learned counsel for the petitioner. It seems that the order of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal is based on wrong premises, namely, that the MPO was the successor of Mechanized Construction Company of Pakistan Limited, though factually in 1963 there was no such company by the name as the latter was incorporated w,e,f, 1-9-1974. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Mr. Naimur Rehman, in support of his submission that in 1969 MPO was in existence as a department of WAPDA, has referred to the case of the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, namely, Representatives of the WAPDA Workers' Union and others v. Fazil Khaliq Khan, Chairman, First West Pakistan Industrial Court, Karachi and others, reported in 1969 PLC 492, in which it has been so held. In our view, it will be appropriate to remand the case to the Learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal with the direction to rehear the matter and to decide the appeal afresh on the assumption that the MPO is not the successor of Mechanized Construction Company of Pakistan, but it is the other way round.
6. We allow the above petition in the above terms and declare the impugned order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs.