Judging employees
WHEN citizens file lawsuits, they expect speedy justice, preferably in their favour. But whether a petitioner deserves relief or not depends on the testimonies of witnesses, other documentary evidence and fair judicial assessment. Recently, courts in Hyderabad and Multan reiterated the views of the legal fraternity in two labour issues. A third case pertains to harassment at the workplace.
On winding up their operations, MNCs give generous packages to terminated employees. For example, the factory of Philip Morris in Kotri shut down in March 2019. Its employees received a handsome package. The company had engaged various contractors who would recruit their own employees to provide janitorial and other services. In one instance, a gardener was recruited in August 2012 through a contractor. He continued to work under various contractors till the factory closed. His last employer was the company’s service provider HRSG SSP. While the company’s direct employees were given a severance package on the same day, the gardener was told to continue his job. As a result, he served as the service provider’s employee till he was let go in 2023. He claimed that he was denied a termination package on the basis of not being a direct employee of the MNC. The gardener then filed a petition in the Court of Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation and Authority under the Sindh Payment of Wages Act, 2015.
The company was directed by this court to deposit Rs4.25 million towards the gardener’s severance package. This was challenged in the Sindh High Court. The ruling has been set aside on various grounds. The key points are as follows. First, the actual employer of the gardener was the service provider, and it had not announced any severance package for its employees. Second, the commissioner assumed jurisdiction over a claim that was not maintainable before him, thereby exceeding his authority.
In short, the high court’s decision reiterates the view that the staffer has to ensure compliance with the employment terms and conditions of his current employer and not those of the principal organisation.
On another front, the Circuit Court in Hyderabad issued a different verdict in a case where the petitioner had assailed an order passed by the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment of Women. The petitioner worked at the Regional Directorate of National Savings in Hyderabad. The respondent regularly accompanied her father, an investor at the National Savings Centre.
Employees can suffer on account of poor internal inquiries.
The litigant claimed that the respondent exchanged messages with him, which were innocuous and far from ‘harassment’. He also asserted that without affording him an opportunity to present his final argument, the ombudsperson proceeded to impose a major penalty — demotion with a fine of Rs100,000. Moreover, he contended that the order of the ombudsperson “lacked jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by a person who was neither an employee nor associated with the workplace in any statutory capacity” as required by the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The legislative intent behind the law is to regulate conduct in the workplace between persons who stand in a professional, supervisory, or employment-related relationship. The court, therefore, declared that the order of the ombudsperson was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and that the resultant penalty could not be sustained.
In another case, the Lahore High Court’s Multan bench decided that the authority, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, possessed the power to settle grievances of non-payment of wages to employed persons. In this case, M/s Askari Guards (Pvt) Ltd and others had filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court stating that as trans-provincial organisations, jurisdiction rested with the National Industrial Relations Commission, and not with the provincial authority referred to here.
The court declared that the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was applicable to trans-provincial establishments as it governs collective labour relations and industrial disputes, while the provincial law ensures regularity in the payment of wages through its wage-protection statute.
In sum, the inability to institute proper internal inquiries has dire consequences for employees — unlawful termination, reputational harm, and even long, expensive legal implications. Employment relations, regardless of hierarchy, must adhere to the principle of scrupulous investigation before any punitive action is taken.
The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi.
Published in Dawn, May 1st, 2026
