PAKISTAN BATTERY WORKERS UNION KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTAURING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED KARACHI

DECISION

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.