1993 PLP 225 (PLC)
PAKISTAN BATTERY WORKERS UNION, KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI
| Citation | 1993 PLP 225 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PAKISTAN BATTERY WORKERS UNION, KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 225 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 225 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 225 (PLC) (PAKISTAN BATTERY WORKERS UNION, KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Salim Khan for Appellant.
- Mehmood A. Ghani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15(1)(i), 38(3‑A) & 53‑‑‑Closing down the establishment ‑‑‑Suo motu revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑‑Establishment admittedly having undergone a considerable loss, Trial Court granted permission to employer to close down the same‑‑‑After such closure all employees were terminated and had collected their dues in full‑‑‑Order of Trial Court could not be interfered with by Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Salim Khan for Appellant. Mehmood A. Ghani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st May, 1992. Given that the respondent‑company engaged in the manufacture of Dry Battery' Cell has been undergoing very considerable losses from 1986 onwards; that its accumulated liabilities were more than twice the paid‑up capital, but maintaining proper audited accounts for all these years which have not been seriously challenged, the question is whether the permission granted by the Labour Court to close the company and terminate the service of all his 113 or so employees can be interfered with in an Application under section 38(3‑A), IRO before this Tribunal?
2. There is also another feature which has to be kept in juxtaposition to it.
3. In the wake of the impugned order, the respondent stated to have cleared the dues of all the workers. There is an affidavit filed by the Chairman/Managing Director of the respondent‑company, that all the workers without an exception have collected their dues in full and final satisfaction following the grant of permission to close the establishment. He also filed payment receipt from the informant in the sum of Rs.92,601.10.
4. There have been a number of adjournments sought by the informant and he has been very much aware of this Affidavit. There is no Counter Affidavit either on his behalf or on behalf of any single worker repudiating the respondents' assertion.
5. Under the circumstances there is no occasion for me to act under the suo Motu jurisdiction on the information laid before me. I will therefore dismiss the application. H.B.T./2068/Lb.S Revision application dismissed.