ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Saturday ruled that 25 per cent of a trade union’s executive committee, as contemplated by the Industrial Relations Act 2012 (IRA), need not consist of workmen of an entity and may include outsiders.

The ruling came while setting aside the Aug 29, 2023 Sindh High Court judgement on a petition moved by Muhammad Akhlaq Khan, a former chairman of the Labour Union of the then Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC), now K-Electric (KE).

Headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, a two-judge FCC bench, also comprising Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, allowed the civil petition, holding that the remaining 25 per cent of the members of a trade union’s executive were not necessarily required to be workmen and could include persons who were not workmen.

The dispute arose when the high court held that the petitioner, who had retired from KE and was a practising advocate, was ineligible to contest the union’s election for the remaining 25pc quota under the proviso to Section 8(1)(d) of the IRA.

Sets aside SHC’s decision declaring then KESC’s labour body chairman ineligible to contest election

The petitioner was elected chairman of the union in 2017 and again in 2019. The union was later elected through a referendum as the collective bargaining agent for K-Electric. Disputes subsequently arose over the election of its office-bearers.

A challenge to that election was dismissed by the Registrar of Trade Unions on May 20, 2019, leading to four appeals before the chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). On Feb 17, 2020, he dismissed two appeals seeking cancellation of the union’s registration but allowed the other two concerning the change of its office-bearers, set aside the registrar’s order and directed fresh elections.

It was also observed that the petitioner, then stated to be 61 years old, had attained the age of superannuation and was no longer an employee or workman of K-Electric and, therefore, could not be an office-bearer of the union. It was further noted that he was admittedly an advocate by profession, and doubts were expressed about the documents produced to show suspension of his licence to practise law.

Senior counsel Salahuddin Ahmed, representing the petitioner, argued that the SHC had misread Section 8(1)(d) of the IRA, adding that although the main provision requires at least 75pc of a trade union’s executive members to be workmen employed in the relevant establishment or industry, the proviso expressly removes that condition for the remaining 25pc.

The high court, therefore, erred in holding that members falling within the remaining 25pc must also be workmen employed in the establishment, the counsel argued.

Advocate Muhammad Umer Lakhani, representing the respondents, however, supported the high court judgement and submitted that the petitioner was seeking indirectly to unsettle the observations regarding his ineligibility.

Authored by Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, the 35-page judgement held that the proviso to Section 8(1)(d) of the IRA appeared to be clarificatory in nature and made explicit what was already implicit in the main provision.

The judgement said the proviso in the IRA did not create a new category of persons outside the minimum 75pc; that category was already inherent in the main provision. What the proviso did was make clear, in relation to that category, that the condition of employment prescribed for the minimum 75pc was not applicable to them.

The judgement also noted that the IRA was a piece of beneficial legislation aimed primarily at preserving and safeguarding the interests of the labour class in its dealings with management, whose interests might not always coincide with the welfare of workers.

Consistent with this beneficial character, the interpretation adopted by the FCC preserved, within the 25pc limit permitted by Section 8(1)(d) of the IRA, the choice of workers to include in the executive persons whom they considered suitable to represent their interests, without importing a qualification that the legislature had not prescribed and which would limit their freedom.

It is well settled that such legislation is to be interpreted broadly and in a manner that advances the interests of the class for whose benefit it has been enacted, the judgement emphasised.

No age bar prescribed

Regarding the maximum age of a person seeking election to the executive of a trade union within the 25pc quota, the FCC observed that no such age restriction had been prescribed by the IRA 2012.

“In view of the principle of separation of powers, we do not consider it appropriate for FCC to prescribe any such age limit, that being a matter for the legislature,” the judgement said, but suggested that the legislature might consider prescribing a maximum age in the range of 65 to 70 years for such persons, together with an appropriate requirement as to their physical and mental fitness.

Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2026