TRIO INDUSTRIES (PVT) LIMITED vs BABU SHER — 2026 SCMR 152 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 company 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 that closure was retaliatory against trade union activities and filed grievance petitions. Labour Court dismissed the petitions. On appeal, Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the dismissal and ordered compensation in lieu of reinstatement. High Court upheld the order holding that closure was not in accordance with law as no application had been made to the Government through proper channel. Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner's application for closure fulfilled the legal requirement of seeking approval under Standing Order 15 of the 2015 Act and whether compensation in lieu of reinstatement was justified. Held: The petitioner filed application for permission to close down the factory before a wrong forum and after expiry of fifteen days presumed that application stood approved by fiction of law, which was an incorrect interpretation. Had the petitioner approached and filed application through proper channel, including the office of Chief Secretary for placing the matter before the Provincial Cabinet, the matter could have been considered by the competent authority. The Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the application was not submitted to the Government and therefore could not be deemed to have been granted merely on expiry of fifteen days. The High Court rightly held that the establishment was not legally closed down and Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly directed deposit of compensation payable to workers instead of reinstatement. Since the establishment had already been closed unlawfully, reinstatement was not possible and would have been merely an academic exercise. Grant of reasonable compensation was the appropriate remedy to secure lawful service dues of employees. Leave to appeal was refused and petition was dismissed. Intent of legislature to be given full effect---Statutes should be interpreted in a manner that makes them workable and courts should avoid interpretations which defeat the intention of lawmakers or render statutory provisions ineffective. The legislative intent is to be gathered from the language of the statute and courts must interpret provisions according to their object and purpose. art.91---Rules of Business, 1973, Rr.16, 17, 18 & 20---Supremacy and role of Cabinet in Executive decision-making. The Cabinet, being the supreme body of Executive authority, cannot be treated as a rubber stamp for decisions of the Prime Minister. Constitution envisages parliamentary form of government based on collective decision-making by Cabinet. Turning Cabinet into a rubber stamp would violate the constitutional scheme and convert parliamentary government into prime ministerial government, which is alien to the Constitution. Ss.2(g), 2(k), 3, S.O.15 & Sched.---Closing down of establishment---Absence of procedural legal framework---Need for legislative and regulatory reforms. There must be a structured mechanism for dealing with applications submitted to Government for closure of establishments under Standing Order 15 of Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015. Government must ensure that closure is bona fide and workers' lawful dues are protected. A proper procedure requiring hearing of employer, employees, trade union/CBA and passing of speaking orders is necessary. Necessary amendments in law, rules or Standard Operating Procedures were required to protect workers from unlawful termination and also safeguard genuine employers.

TRIO INDUSTRIES (PVT) LIMITED vs BABU SHER — 2026 SCMR 152 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR