TRIO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED vs BABU SHER — 2026 PLC 30 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

TRIO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED VS BABU SHER. Ss. 2(g), 3, 14, S.O. 15 & Sched.---Sindh Industrial Relations Act (XXIX of 2013), Ss. 34(7), 47(3) & 48(3)---Closing down of an establishment by the employer---Grievance petition by the employees---Payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service, grant of---Due process and mandatory procedure to be followed for seeking approval before closing of establishment by employer, requirement of---Scope---Facts in brevity were that the petitioner being engaged in printing ceramic tiles for other manufacturers applied under Standing Order 15 of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015 to close its factory due to technological changes rendering its business unviable---Employees alleged the closure was in retaliation to trade union activities and filed grievance petitions, which were dismissed by the Labour Court---On appeal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered compensation for the employees in lieu of reinstatement---The High Court upheld this order, holding that the closure was not in accordance with law as no application had been made to the government through the proper channel---Pivotal question for determination before the Supreme Court was as to "Whether the petitioner company's application for closure of its establishment fulfilled the legal requirement of seeking closure approval under Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act, and if compensation in lieu of reinstatement granted to the employees was justified?"---Held: The petitioner filed the application for seeking permission to close down the factory before a wrong forum, and after lapse of fifteen days, presumed that their application, by fiction of law was allowed, which was a completely wrong understanding of the law by the petitioner---Had the (petitioner) approached and filed an application through the proper channel, which could be the office of the Chief Secretary, with the request to place it before the provincial cabinet for approval, and if such application was then moved to the Government through the Chief Secretary, there was a possibility that the Chief Minister could have placed such application before the Cabinet for consideration---Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly held that the application for closing down the factory was not submitted to the government, therefore it could not be deemed to have been granted upon the expiry of fifteen days---High Court had also expressed distinctly that the petitioner company had not legally closed down the establishment, hence the Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly directed the petitioner's company to deposit the amount due as payment to the workers within one month, in view of the length of their service, instead of reinstating them in service, which was not possible---Since, in the present case, due to certain reasons, the petitioner had already closed down the whole establishment unlawfully, therefore, the reinstatement of employees in a closed down establishment was otherwise not possible, and had reinstatement been ordered, it could have no positive effect except being an academic exercise without any implementation or execution---Therefore, in order to secure the lawful service dues in such peculiar set of circumstances, the best devise was to grant reasonable compensation to the workmen for their wrongful removal from service---Had the application for closure of the factory been moved through the Chief Secretary for consideration by the Government/Cabinet, the situation would have been much different, with the rider that if the application for permission to close down was not decided within fifteen days of its submission, the said application could be deemed to have been granted/allowed and appeal against such decision could have been filed within thirty days of the order---Moreover, the violation of Standing Orders had been made punishable under Section 7 of the 2015 Act---No illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by Labour Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court were found---Leave was refused and petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

TRIO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED vs BABU SHER — 2026 PLC 30 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLC