Pakistan Case Law
2006 SCMR 630

Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and otherss

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2006 SCMR 630
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.309 to 319 of 2004
Date2004-03-29
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan
Authored byIftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated from petitions challenging a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had upheld an earlier decision by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question before the High Court was a determination of the employment status of the respondents: specifically, whether they were employees of the petitioner (Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd.) or of the contractor (respondent No. 4). Both the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, after reviewing the evidence and relevant legal provisions, concurrently concluded that the respondents were employees of the petitioner, not the contractor. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that these concurrent findings of fact were based on the material available on record and were legally sound. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment was unexceptionable and did not warrant interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petitions were dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding employment status, when supported by evidence, are generally not subject to interference by the Supreme Court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding employment status under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
  • Does the determination of whether a worker is an employee of a principal or a contractor constitute a question of fact?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
employment statuscontractor vs employerconcurrent findings of factlabour lawleave to appealSupreme Court jurisdiction

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Listed petitions have been filed against the judgment, dated 26th January, 2004 passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby constitution petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 10th April, 1997 has been maintained.

2. In the instant case precise question for consideration before the High Court was whether the respondents are employees of the petitioner or the Contractor (respondent No,4)? The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on the basis of material available on record has concluded that the respondents are employees of the petitioner. Such findings of fact have been confirmed by High Court who had undertaken the exercise to go through the relevant provisions of law as well as the evidence produced by the parties. Since both the Courts have held that the private respondents are employees of the petitioner and as far as Contractor (respondent No,4) is concerned he is not their employer. Therefore, in such view of the matter we are of the opinion that impugned judgment being unexceptionable admits of no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

' Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in these petitions as such the same are dismissed and leave declined.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.