Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 270 1992 SLD 270 1992 PLC 622
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-1083 of 1989, decision dated: 14-01-1992, hearing DATE : 4-11-1991
SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JUSTICE
Obaidur Rehman for Petitioner. Ali Amjad, Sulaiman Oasim and Abdul hafoor Mangi, Addl. A.G. for
Respondents.

KARACHI PIPE MILLS LIMITED

VS

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Section: 23

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--S. 23-B---Auditor appointed by Government to look into commercial and financial transactions of company---Competency---Auditors could not take into consideration matters which did not fall within scope of audit under provision of S.23-B, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969---Commercial and financial transactions of company could not form basis of arriving at the conclusions in question, for S. 23-B, was extended only to factory and not to an establishment which was anything other than factory---Auditor's report based on commercial and financial transactions of company, thus, was not binding on company. Messrs Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Islamabad and 3 others PLD 1978 Kar. 972; Messrs Rashid Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others 1984 PLC 700 and United Woollen Mills Workers' Union v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. III and another 1988 PLC 564 rel. (b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----S. 234---Auditor---Scope of authority---Auditor, under Companies Ordinance, 1984, was confined to examination of accounts of Company primarily to see that balance sheet and profits and loss accounts were drawn up in conformity with law---Balance-sheet and profits and loss accounts would give a true and fair view of profits and loss of company for relevant financial year---Where Auditor oversteps such functions and enters into examination of manner in which business of company was conducted, he would clearly be acting in excess of his authority. London and General Bank Ltd., in re: 1895 2 Ch. D. 673 rel. (c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----S. 255---Auditor---Power and Authority---Auditor nominated by Government on the application of C.BA. of company had all the powers and authority akin to that of the auditor of company under 5.255, Companies Ordinance, 1984 to audit accounts of factory to whose workers, CBA concerned represented, and none of the other projects of the company. (d) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)--- ----S. 23-B---Report relating to commercial and financial transactions…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492