1988 PLP 766 (PLC)

The admitted facts appear to be, that the respondents were appointed as Auditors to re‑audit, the accounts of the appellant at the request of the Trade Union under section 23‑B(10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by the Government of Sind. Admittedly, the Government of Sind fixed the fee of the respondents under section 23‑B(12) of the Ordinance, to be the same as payable by the applicants to their regular auditors. Admittedly, the appellant paid Rs.45,000 as the fee to the regular auditors. As such, this amount would be considered as fee fixed by the Government of Sind, under the said provisions of the Ordinance. The respondents started auditing from June, 1978 and submitted their report in September, 1978. As they failed to get the fee from the applicants, they filed a civil suet on 26‑2‑1978 for the recovery of the amount. The applicants, who `are a public company, filed an application before the Sind Government for the reduction of fee, which was reduced by the government apparently without notice to the respondents to rupees ten thousand, by their order Exh.5/2 dated 28‑3‑1979. The respondents issued a notice to the Government on 2‑4‑1979 Exh.5/3, raising the objections, that the contract could not be varied to their disadvantage after completion of work without notice. The Government of Sind passed another order Exh.5/4 whereby the order Exh.5/2 dated 28‑3‑1979 was withdrawn. The learned trial Court settled the following issues:‑ (i) Whether the plaintiff was appointed by the Provincial Government to carry out checking of already audited accounts of the defendant company a/s. 23‑B(10) of I.R.O. 1969, and if so who is empowered to fix the audit fee? (2) What fee was determined by the Government to be paid to the plaintiff for auditing the accounts of defendant? (3) What is the amount of audit fees, lastly fixed by Provincial Government of Sind? (4) To what amount the plaintiffs are entitled as their fees? (5) What should the decree be? Deciding all these issues in favour of the respondents, the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents for Rs.45,000 with costs. The appeal of the applicants was di3missed by the learned District Judge vide impugned order, hence this revision application. The facts of the case are more or less admitted. I, therefore, need not go into the facts. The main objection raised before the learned District Judge which is being also raised in this Court, is that Exh.5/4, whereby order of reduction of fee vide Exh.5/2 was withdrawn was not properly proved by the respondents and as such, it should not be considered as evidence. The learned Sessions Judge had held the order of the Government of Sind Exh.5/2 reducing the fee to be null and void, because the terms of contract could not be varied to the disadvantage of the respondents after completion of the work and without notice to them. He, therefore, dismissed the second objection of the present applicants with respect to proper proof of Exh.5/4 in the following words:‑ "I have already held, that the order of the Government reducing the fee was null and void being against the principles of natural justice. Besides this document Exh.5/4 was not denied by the appellant's witness in his evidence. The respondent had also deposed about this document but his evidence was not challenged in cross‑examination and would be deemed to have been accepted. When P.W. Zubair Exh.5 was examined, advocate for the appellant was absent. Request of appellant to recall him and respondent was allowed with costs. It is therefore the appellant who should have recalled him. The witness was a Government servant and could have been produced even as a defence witness. The letter Exh.5/4 is addressed to the appellant and a copy of it was sent to the respondent. If the appellant felt that it was not a genuine document any other officer of the Department could have been called in defence to disapprove it." I am of the opinion, that the learned District Judge had applied his mind properly and has considered all the contentions raised by the applicants repelling them for cogent reasons. No fresh ground of attack on impugned order has been raised in this Court. I do not consider any valid reason or ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned District Judge in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court. The Revision Application was, therefore, dismissed by a short order dated 15‑3‑1987 in limine. The above are the reasons in support of the said order. M.Y.H./N‑67/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed