KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed a petition challenging a provision of the Sindh Factories Act (SFA) about the definition of “worker” for being devoid of legal substance.

Citing the provincial authorities concerned as respondents, the petitioner argued that the impugned provision has removed any person employed through a third party or contractor from within the definition of “worker”, which was different from some other statutes.

He also submitted that there were over 800,000 workers within the province who were purportedly suffering due to the definition of “worker” contained in the law in question.

A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC comprising Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Justice Muhammad Osman Ali Hadi observed that the petitioner was neither an aggrieved person nor had shown violation of any fundamental constitutional right requiring interference under Article 199 of the Constitution.

Bench observes petitioner was not an aggrieved person

Advocate Tariq Mansoor had petitioned the SHC in 2017 impugning Section 2(n) of the Sindh Factories Act, 2015, and argued that it was contrary to Articles 8, 18 and 25 of the Constitution.

However, a provincial law officer asserted that the petitioner has failed to establish himself as an “aggrieved person” and the definition of “worker” in the SFA 2015 was actually in best interest of workers as it removed fee/commissions which were deducted from workers’ salaries by third-party middleman such as contractors/agents leaving workers to get more disposable income to themselves.

The bench in its order noted that when the petitioner was confronted as to why none of the workers allegedly affected/aggrieved had challenged the provision in question, he simply responded that the workers lacked the financial means to do so.

It also observed that such a statement has not carried any legal value and also eluded the fact that the petitioner has filed such a petition in his own name, which appeared to be seeking self-publicity, whereas if any of the workers were actually aggrieved, the petitioner could have represented them on a pro bono basis, which he has not done.

Referring to some rulings of the Supreme Court, the bench further maintained that the petition appeared to have been filed in “private interest litigation”, which was completely separate and must be sequestered from public interest litigation.

“We find the petitioner has remained unable to establish any illegality, nor has he been able to demonstrate how he stands aggrieved in the matter. It further appears the petitioner has failed to determine any cause for public interest. To the contrary, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has acted for fulfilment of personal/private publicity, and has fallen short in establishing any grounds showing he has acted in the interests of the public at large”, it added.

The bench noted that the petitioner has neither addressed nor challenged the legislative process and simply alleged that since the definition of “worker” in the SFA 2015 was different to the definition in other acts passed by the provincial assembly, the impugned provision was liable to be struck down.

It also said: “Even if such submission held any credibility (which in our opinion it does not), the same would fall within the legislative wisdom of parliament. For the court to meddle in the same (without any violation of the Constitution), would be tantamount to legislating, which of course cannot be done, as has repeatedly been held by the Supreme Court”.

While turning down the petition, the bench further observed that the petition was entirely without merit and devoid of legal substance, and these types of frivolous petitions filed with malintent and lacking lawful validation must be discouraged.

Published in Dawn, February 15th, 2026