Closure of industrial, commercial establishments: Sindh govt, not labour court, has jurisdiction to decide cases: SC
A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard appeals against the Sindh High Court (SHC) verdict.
The transitory facts of the case are that the petitioner (M/s Trio Industries (Pvt) Limited) was engaged in the business of printing of ceramic tiles on finished products manufactured by other ceramic tiles production companies. Due to the advancement of technology, the process of printing tiles has become an integral part of the manufacturing process, hence the petitioner's enterprise was no more a viable venture.
The petitioner on 02.03.2017 applied to the Labour Department, instead of the Sindh Government, under Standing Order 15 of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 for permission to close down the factory.
During the closure process, the respondents (employees of the factory) filed their Grievance Petition before the Labour Court and alleged that due to trade union activities, the petitioner has decided to remove them from service. They asserted that no proper application was moved to the Government of Sindh for seeking their approval in the closure of the establishment, which was the wrong method.
SC determines right meaning of FMCG products
The Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissed the grievance petitions. The respondents then filed appeals under Section 48 (3) of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA). The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi directed the petitioner to deposit the stipulated amount of compensation within one month. The petitioner filed a constitution petition before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed.
The petitioner's stance was that the Joint Director, Labour, represents the government and the application for closing down the establishment was rightly submitted to him, as he was the proper authority for submission of such application, and hence, intimation or notice to the Chief Secretary, Sindh, was not required.
The judgment noted that under Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act, an application for closing down the establishment was to be moved to the Government of Sindh, rather the Labour Department. If, under Standing Order 15, the application for permission to close down was not decided within 15 days of its submission, the said application could be deemed to have been granted/allowed, it added.
It said there must be some well structured procedure and mechanism to deal with and decide the applications submitted to the Government of Sindh for closing down the establishment in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act.
'No doubt, the powers are given to the government, but there is no procedure to decide such application except providing the outer limit of 15 days; that, too, is in favour of the employer, to presume that his application is allowed if it was not decided or responded to within 15 days. Therefore, a clean slate is accorded to the employer to immediately shut down the whole business/establishment without checking whether the action is bona fide or mala fide or, while doing so, if the full and final accrued dues of employees have been settled or not.
'On the contrary, while assuming jurisdiction to accord permission, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the close down is bona fide and permission is granted after ensuring the payment of dues to the employees.'
The judgment said there is a need to enact a fool-proof procedure to deal with, examine, and decide such applications after hearing the employer and employees/their representative/Trade Union/CBA, and then render a speaking order so that an aggrieved person may file an appeal in the Labour Court in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act.
The court recommended that some necessary amendments in the 2015 Act or some rules or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are required to be enacted in the best interest of workers, to save them from unlawful removal from service in case of mala fide attempts/schemes, and also from deprivation of their lawful dues in case bona fide of employer is proved.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
14 hours ago
- Business Recorder
CJP for developing judicial infrastructure under citizen-centric approach
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi emphasised that the development of judicial infrastructure must follow a citizen-centric approach. He called for the inclusion of a modern Facilitation Centre within the Judicial Complex to assist litigants and the public at large, ensuring improved access to information and services focused on facilitating litigants, lawyers, and the general public. He, along with Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Junaid Ghaffar, and the SHC judges – Justice Zafar Rajput and Justice Iqbal Kalhoro, met with the District and Sessions Judges of the Karachi Division at the SHC building on Monday. During the interaction, the SHC CJ apprised the CJP Afridi regarding the proposed construction of a state-of-the-art Judicial Complex in Karachi, comprising 125 fully equipped courts along with all requisite amenities. The project is intended to address the growing needs of the judicial system in the port city and is expected to commence shortly. The CJP welcomed the initiative and underscored the importance of sustainable, scalable, and forward-looking infrastructure planning. He stressed that future forecasting must be integrated into the design to ensure the long-term viability of the complex. In this regard, he recommended that structured consultations be held with all relevant stakeholders—including judges and members of the district bar—to gather practical input keeping in view the technicalities so that a refined proposal may be placed before the government for timely execution. The visit reaffirmed the judiciary's commitment to institutional development, participatory planning, and the delivery of accessible and efficient justice. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
16 hours ago
- Business Recorder
ST fraud cases: Arrest warrants only in case of fake, flying invoices: FBR
ISLAMABAD: Addressing concerns of business community, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on Monday announced that the warrant of arrest from judge would only be obtained in the sales tax fraud cases of fake and flying invoices. According to a sales tax explanatory circular issued by the FBR on Monday, the FBR clarified arrest related provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1990. One of the major demands of the business community was to limit the arrest powers to the issues of fake/ flying invoices. The FBR has clarified to the business community that the warrant of arrest from judge under subsection (9) of Section 37A of the Sales Tax Act may be obtained primarily in the sales tax frauds which are heinous or material including fake and flying invoices. Under this subsection, the following pre-conditions shall also apply as is the case of arrest under subsection (8) of section 37A: (i) The accused may tamper with documents. (ii) The accused may abscond. (iii) The accused does not help investigations despite three served notices. In addition to that the board will separately notify the detailed procedure, preconditions and restrictions through an sales tax general order (STGO) for the smooth operation of subsections (8) and (9) of Section 37A of the Sales Tax Act, FBR added. The FBR has also separated criminal and civil liability to differentiate between non-compliance and fraudulent activities. Sub-section (1) of section 11E has been substituted where by non-payment of tax through collusion or deliberate act are excluded from its scope, because the provisions of law already exist in this Act under section 37A for initiation of criminal proceedings in such non-payments. Similarly, the provisions of section 11E shall not be applicable to the extent where proceedings have been initiated under section 37A. This differential between proceedings under section 11E and section 37A is important as the former deals with non-compliance where as latter deals with the fraudulent activities. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Closure of industrial, commercial establishments: Sindh govt, not labour court, has jurisdiction to decide cases: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court declared that under the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015, the jurisdiction to decide cases of closure of industrial or commercial establishment is vested in the Government of Sindh, rather than the Labour Court. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard appeals against the Sindh High Court (SHC) verdict. The transitory facts of the case are that the petitioner (M/s Trio Industries (Pvt) Limited) was engaged in the business of printing of ceramic tiles on finished products manufactured by other ceramic tiles production companies. Due to the advancement of technology, the process of printing tiles has become an integral part of the manufacturing process, hence the petitioner's enterprise was no more a viable venture. The petitioner on 02.03.2017 applied to the Labour Department, instead of the Sindh Government, under Standing Order 15 of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act 2015 for permission to close down the factory. During the closure process, the respondents (employees of the factory) filed their Grievance Petition before the Labour Court and alleged that due to trade union activities, the petitioner has decided to remove them from service. They asserted that no proper application was moved to the Government of Sindh for seeking their approval in the closure of the establishment, which was the wrong method. SC determines right meaning of FMCG products The Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, dismissed the grievance petitions. The respondents then filed appeals under Section 48 (3) of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA). The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi directed the petitioner to deposit the stipulated amount of compensation within one month. The petitioner filed a constitution petition before the Sindh High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner's stance was that the Joint Director, Labour, represents the government and the application for closing down the establishment was rightly submitted to him, as he was the proper authority for submission of such application, and hence, intimation or notice to the Chief Secretary, Sindh, was not required. The judgment noted that under Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act, an application for closing down the establishment was to be moved to the Government of Sindh, rather the Labour Department. If, under Standing Order 15, the application for permission to close down was not decided within 15 days of its submission, the said application could be deemed to have been granted/allowed, it added. It said there must be some well structured procedure and mechanism to deal with and decide the applications submitted to the Government of Sindh for closing down the establishment in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act. 'No doubt, the powers are given to the government, but there is no procedure to decide such application except providing the outer limit of 15 days; that, too, is in favour of the employer, to presume that his application is allowed if it was not decided or responded to within 15 days. Therefore, a clean slate is accorded to the employer to immediately shut down the whole business/establishment without checking whether the action is bona fide or mala fide or, while doing so, if the full and final accrued dues of employees have been settled or not. 'On the contrary, while assuming jurisdiction to accord permission, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the close down is bona fide and permission is granted after ensuring the payment of dues to the employees.' The judgment said there is a need to enact a fool-proof procedure to deal with, examine, and decide such applications after hearing the employer and employees/their representative/Trade Union/CBA, and then render a speaking order so that an aggrieved person may file an appeal in the Labour Court in terms of Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act. The court recommended that some necessary amendments in the 2015 Act or some rules or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are required to be enacted in the best interest of workers, to save them from unlawful removal from service in case of mala fide attempts/schemes, and also from deprivation of their lawful dues in case bona fide of employer is proved. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
