' This suo motu revision is directed against the order, dated 11th August, 1982 passed by the Sind Labour Court No, IV at Karachi, allowing the application filed by the respondents under Standing Order 11-A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, for permission to close down the establishment.
2. The case of the respondents, who are engaged in assembling of Scooters and Rickshaws with Trade Mark vespa', before the learned Labour Court was to the effect that due to the financial difficulties, less production, competition in the market they suffered heavy losses in the buisness with a result that they had no other option but to close down the establishment for which they sought the permission.
3. The case of the applicant, who was one of the removed employees of the establishment was that the application for permission for closure filed before the learned Labour Court was bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper partiesthe Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction, the respondents' Factory 'Manager, Muhammad Sharif had no locus standi to file the same ; the documents, produced on behalf of the respondents were inadmissible in evidence and that even on merits the respondents had no case.
4. The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence adduced by both the parties oral as well as documentary and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned order with the following observations :- "In the light of evidence brought on record it is established that on account of financial reasons and due to adverse market conditions the applicant company is not able to continue its functions smoothly inasmuch as it had incurred heavy losses and overdrafts in spite of publicity for sales of its products through mass media. In my view there is no law compelling an employer to continue with his business in spite of financial stringencies and unfavourbie market conditions. Even the fairplay and equity demand that an employer should not be thrusted upon a decision not to close down its factory or establishment because such a decision is likely to result into labour unrest and industrial disturbances in the event of non-payment of wages of the workers and default in payment of various taxes, fees, losses etc. To the different agencies. I am inclined to agree with the statement of the applicant-company who is unable to manage its affairs smoothly and in the interest of share-holders who have obviously invested their money with a view to earn profits, which is lacking."
5. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant moved this Tribunal in this suo motu revision under section 38(3-a), I. R.
0., 1968, calling in question the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order.
6. My learned predecessor finding that balance-sheets and profit and loss account statements were produced only for the years since 1978 and 1980, called the same for the remaining years 1979, 1981 and 1982 which are available on the file of the revision application.
7. I have perused the material evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Labour Court as well as the balance sheets and the profit and loss accounts for the years 1979, 1981 and 1982 produced before this Tribunal and have also heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Asbraf Hussain Rizvi, whereas the respondent-establishment and their Advocate, Mr. Suleman Habibullah remained absent. There would arise two questions for determination, firstly, as to what extent this Tribunal can legally interfere with the impugned order within the scope of its suo motu jurisdiction as provided in section 38(3-a), I. R.
0., 1969, and secondly, as to whether the impugned order can be legally sustained on merits ?
8. As regards the first question, section 38(3-a), I. R.
0., 1969 does clearly say that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal would be limited to correct only the basis, fundamental and broad errors, factual legal or otherwise. Reference in that respect is invited to the Division Bench decision of Karachi High Court the case of Jannat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. . The intention of Law, therefore, seems to be very clear that the Tribunal in its suo motu jurisdiction is not expected to go into the niceties of legal as well as factual issues that would arise in a case. It seems to be clear that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 38(3-a), I. R.
0. 1969, is limited only to correct the errors which appear apparent either on the face of the impugned order or on the face of the record out of which the impugned order arises. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi conceded to the legal position in that respect, though half-heartedly. There apears no doubt, therefore, that this Tribunal in its suo motu jurisdiction under section 38(3-a), I. R.
0., 1969 can legally correct only the basis and fundamental errors apparent on the face of the record, that would arise in a case.
9. The next question that would arise for determination is, as to whether the impugned order that is called in question in this suo motu revision can be legally sustained. I find that the learned Labour Court has elaborately discussed all the legal as well as the factual issues particularly with reference to the evidence that was recorded in the case before it passed the impugned order. The learned Labour Court not only considered the oral evidence but also the documentary evidence in support of the pleas raised by the respondent establishment that there is a consistent decline in their business and that the losses they have suffered in the ultimate years are much more than the profits they earned in the earlier years on account of factors that came in the way of their business.
I have also examined balance-sheets as well as profit and loss account statements produced before this Tribunal and the losses suffered by the respondent-establishment during the years 1981 and 1982 are much more than the profits earned by them in the earlier years with effect from 19781 to 1980. These statements of accounts, would clearly disclose that there was a considerable decline in the business for the factors as contended by the respondents. The letters pro- ' duced from the various banks would disclose that the respondent underwent over-drafts from the banks to the extent of huge amounts to run the business. In view of all this evidence on the record, it cannot be said that the respondents were not right in their assessment to the effect that they shall not be able to run the business not only to their advantage but not even to the advantage of employees of the establishment, in the circumstances Accordingly, even on merits I find that the respondents had a good case before the learned Labour Court. Thus, I do not find any error apparent either on the face of the impugned order or on the face of the record out of which it arises. Therefore, no interference is called for in this suo motu revision.
10. The result is that this suo motu revision is dismissed. PLD 1979 Kar. 725