IFFCO PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs GHULAM MURTAZA S — 2024 SCMR 1548 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.

IFFCO PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS GHULAM MURTAZA S. 2(xxxiii)---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 2(i)---Worker/workman---Scope---Workers employed through an independent contractor---Yardstick to decide the controversy between a direct employee of a company and an employee employed through an independent contractor rests on the extent of control and supervision on human resource, ongoing control of independent contractor, if any, financial risks and obligations, as well as the provision of plant, machinery, and premises, and finally supply of raw material and allied set-up---There is no bar to contract out the whole job or parts of it to an outsource contractor, including human resource within its own premises or through toll manufacturing agreements, but what is crucial is that the outsourcing should not be used as a weapon of circumvention of labour laws or to deprive the workers of legitimate rights envisaged under the labour laws by means of sham agreements---In the case in hand, it was established that the respondent-employees were under the direct supervision and control of petitioner-company and were working within its premises and involved directly or indirectly in the manufacturing process and were also performing their duties for the past many years---Respondent-employees, during evidence, produced various attendance and RPL requisition sheets issued by petitioner-company to prove the direct relationship of employment with petitioner and that the employees were performing duties in its establishment on regular basis against jobs of permanent nature where the entire raw material was provided by the petitioner's management and they were also controlled and supervised by the said management---No such document produced by the employees before the NIRC was rebutted by the management of petitioner---Respondents were being paid from the account of the petitioner-company---It was also significant that the alleged contractors who provided labour/employees to the petitioner never came forward to rescue the petitioner---Fora below had rightly held the respondents to be employees/workmen of petitioner-company---Petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

IFFCO PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED vs GHULAM MURTAZA S — 2024 SCMR 1548 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR