Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑701 of 1973, heard‑on 9th October 1973.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑--

S. O. 11‑A read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 34 & 37‑Closure of factory‑Not a guaranteed right of employer‑Application for closure‑Cannot be treated as an applica tion under S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance but only under S. O. 11‑A, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Order of Labour Court granting or refusing permission for closure under S. O. 11‑A‑Not an award hence not appealable under S. 37 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

It was contended that though the impugned order of Labour Court was passed granting permission for closure of factory under Standing Order 11‑A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1963 the same should be treated as having been passed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such was appealable under section 37 of the Ordinance of 1969. It was argued that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 does not provide any mode for disposal of the application for closure.

Held: It was not necessary to provide any mode for disposal of the appli cation made under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, except to mention that an application would lie to the Labour Court. If the application was maintainable before the Labour Court, it had to dispose it of in accordance with law as applicable to it. So far as section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, it deals with "the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement." There is no guaranteed right in favour of an employer to close a concern. The Standing Orders Ordinance, on the other hand, has put an embargo on such a closure by the employer, except after permission of the Labour Court. The permission to be given by the Labour Court is similar to the permission that has to be obtained by the employer under section 47 of the Ordinance, if he so desires to dismiss any workman. In that case, the application has to be made under section 47 of the Ordinance and not under section 34 of the Ordinance.

The short question is as to whether an order granting permission to close down the concern can be said to be an award. Award is defined as the determination of an industrial dispute. Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employer and workmen which is concerned with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person. An individual or a Company has a general right in law to close down his or its business, but the Standing Orders Ordinance has put a condition that the business can be closed only after permission from the Labour Court, Such a Permission does not involve determination of any industrial dispute amounting to an award and as such is not appealable.

Z. H. Chishti for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 9th October 1973.

This is an appeal under section 373), read with section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), against an order passed on an application under Standing Order 11‑A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Comm.‑rcial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance).

2. The point that requires consideration, in the first place, is as to whether an appeal lies against an order passed under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Subsection (3) of section 37 of the Ordinance reads as under :‑

"Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the delivery thereof and the decision of the Tribunal in such appeal shall be final."

3. Subsection (4) of section 37 of the Ordinance reads as under‑

"All decisions of a Labour Court, other than awards referred to in subsection (3) of this section, and sentences referred to in subsec tion (3) of section 36, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any Court or other authority."

4. It would also be useful to, reproduce Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance. It runs as under:‑

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Order 11, no em ployer shall close down the whole of the establishment without prior permission of the Labour Court in this behalf, except in the event of fire, catastrophe, stoppage of power supply, epidemics or civil commotion"

5. Mr. Z. H. Chishti, the learned Advocate for the appellant, con tended that though the application on which the impugned order was passed was given under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, but the same should be treated to have been made under section 34 of the Ordinance. There is not much force in this contention. The application for closure could not be made under any other provision of law, except under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance. Mr. Chishti submitted that the Standing Orders Ordinance does not provide any mode for disposal of the application for closure. I do not think it was necessary to provide any mode for disposal of the application made under Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, except to mention that an application would lie to the Labour Court. If the application was maintainable before the Labour Court, it had to dispose it of in accordance, with law as applicable to it. So far as section 34 of the Ordinance is con cerned, it deals with "the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it or him by or under any law or any award or settlement." There is no guaranteed right in favour of an employer to close a concern. The Standing Orders Ordinance, on the other hand, has put an embargo on such a closure by the employer, except after permission of the Labour Court. The per mission to be given by the Labour Court is similar to the permission that has to be obtained by the employer under section 47 of the Ordinance, if be so desires to dismiss any workman. In that case, the application has to be made under section 47 of the Ordinance and not under section 34 of the Ordinance.

6. The learned Labour Court, as would appear from the operative portion of the order, passed the impugned order on an application under

Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The learned Labour Court passed the following order :‑

"The evidence on record does not suggest any bias in the mind of the applicant. The application appears bona fide and in good faith. Thus there are sufficient, satisfactory and good causes for closing down the factory.

For these brief reasons, therefore, necessary permission is accorded, as prayed."

7. The short question is as to whether an order granting permission to close down the concern can be said to be an award. Award is defined as the determination of an industrial dispute. Industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and workman which is concerned with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person. An individual or a Company has x general right in law to close down his or its business, but the Standing Orders Ordinance has put a condition that the business can be closed only after permission from the Labour Court. Such a permission does nail involve determination of any industrial dispute.

8. I would hold that the impugned order is not an award and, there fore, no appeal lies. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.