Clarification

This clarification is in respect of a news item entitled 'SHC reserves verdict in companies' hirings through contractors' in Business Recorder issue of December 04, 2019.

In the news item, the plea of the petitioner was erroneously reported, which has been corrected in the reproduced version of the story, which should be read as, "Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday reserved the judgment in a petition against two labour laws imposing restrictions on hiring of employees in private companies, industries and commercial establishments through contractors, sub contractors, middle man or agent.

Petitioner Tariq Masood Advocate moved SHC in 2017 against two impugned provisions of the two Labour Laws ie Section 2(n) of Sindh Factories Act, 2015 and Section 2(n) of Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015 of provincial government of Sindh that barred hiring of employees of private companies industries and commercial establishments through contractors, sub contractors, middle man or agent, which was passed in 2016.

Petitioner contended the Sindh Government enacted the said two laws "impugned provisions" in violation of constitution and its guaranteed fundamental rights and argued that it has not been complying with its 1st Sindh Labour Policy 2018 as well that of UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ILO Conventions etc.

Petitioner requested the court to declare the said law's impugned provisions as ultravires, inconsistent, in contravention of the constitution therefore ab initio null and void and not in conformity with the fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution and issue directives for amending it in conformity with the constitution for the larger public interest.

The Court asked the petitioner to tell the court as how he has been affected by the law. "This petition should be filed by a person who has been affected by the law", the court observed.

The Petitioner told the court that he filed the petition in the public interest, at which court remarked that you want the employees to lose whatever job security they have by striking down this law.

The Court said that institutions are functioning to implement any law, which had not been complied with so far.

The government's attorney told the court that the law was passed for the welfare of the employees working in the private companies, industries and commercial establishments and the petitioner should have moved the court to implement the law rather than seeking its annulment or amendment in it.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2019