Messrs DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD. vs SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others
The petitioner filed petitions against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed its constitutional petition and maintained the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal's judgment holding that the respondents are employees of the petitioner rather than the contractor. The core legal question was whether the private respondents were employees of the petitioner or the independent contractor. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by both the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, based on material and evidence on record, were unexceptionable and did not warrant interference. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact regarding an employer-employee relationship, founded on evidence, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court under its constitutional appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether the respondents are employees of the petitioner or the contractor?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding employment status under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
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 constitutional 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 the 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.