KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has dismissed petitions filed by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) against the decisions of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) for reinstating a terminated employee.

A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC headed by Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon noted that the contention of petitioners about a third-party contractor employee was erroneous as workers performing permanent duties under an establishment cannot be deprived of their rights based on a contractor arrangement.

The SBP and SBP Banking Services Corporation, a distinct legal entity created under the SBP Banking Services Corporation Ordinance, 2001, had petitioned the SHC challenging orders of the NIRC handed down in 2022 and 2024 about reinstatement of Hafiz Raees, who was employed as a dispenser in the main dispensary located within the premises of the SBP through a contractor.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the private respondent/Mr Raees was appointed by a private firm under a contractual arrangement for provision of medical support services and was never in the employment of the SBP and his services were terminated in July 2017 upon expiry of the contract.

Dismisses pleas of SBP against NIRC’s decisions of reinstating a terminated employee

The lawyer for private respondent Ehsanullah supported the impugned orders of the NIRC and contended that his client had continuously served since 2015 and performed duties at the SBP Banking Services Corporation thereby establishing an implied employer-employee relationship.

He also argued that termination of his services was unlawful, and the learned NIRC rightly exercised jurisdiction in directing his reinstatement with back benefits after due appraisal of evidence.

The bench in its order noted that the private respondent was providing medical services to SBP employees continuously and without complaint and in 2017, he was abruptly stopped at the SBP gate and informed of his termination without reasons in violation of a standing order of the Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015.

It also noted that the concurrent findings of the NIRC were conclusive and cannot be interfered with through constitutional jurisdiction particularly in the absence of any material disputing the petitioner’s permanent employment status.

Referring to various judgements of the Supreme Court, the SHC further observed that contention of petitioners about private respondent’s employment through third-party contractor was erroneous as the SC had consistently held that workers performing permanent duties under an establishment cannot be deprived of their rights based on a contractor arrangement.

“Similarly, the objection regarding NIRC’s jurisdiction is without merit. SBP-BSC is a trans-provincial, federal establishment, and the grievance petition was properly entertained under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, as discussed supra”, it added.

The bench dismissed both petitions and upheld the decisions of NIRC.

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2026