25pc of trade union executive members need not be workmen: FCC

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) held that the remaining 25 percent of the members of a trade union’s executive, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 8 (1) (d) of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, need not be workmen and may include persons who are not workmen. In its 35-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, the Court said: “The provision; however, does no more than permit such persons to become part of the executive; their eligibility to hold office remains subject to the constitution of the trade union and any other applicable provision of law. ” Regarding the maximum age of a person seeking election to the executive of a trade union within the permissible 25 percent category, the Court recommended that the legislature may consider prescribing a maximum age in the range of 65 to 70 years for such persons, along with an appropriate requirement regarding their physical and mental fitness. READ ALSO: Benefits under armed forces law: FCC sets aside SHC order in OGDCL employee’s case The two-member FCC bench, comprising Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, set aside the Sindh High Court (SHC) judgment dated August 29, 2023. The petitioner, an employee of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K-Electric) and a member of its Labour Union, had challenged the SHC judgment. He was elected chairman of the union in 2017 and again in 2019. The dispute concerned the petitioner’s eligibility to contest the election for the office of an office-bearer of the KESC Labour Union. The opposing group had raised an objection before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), arguing that the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation and was no longer an employee or workman of K-Electric and, therefore, could not serve as an office-bearer of the union. A single-member bench of the NIRC found no material showing the petitioner to be ineligible for election as an office-bearer of the union. However, the NIRC Full Bench set aside that order on June 16, 2023. The petitioner then challenged the Full Bench order before the SHC. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, holding that the petitioner was not eligible to contest the election for a position within the remaining 25 percent of the union’s executive under the proviso to Section 8 (1) (d) of the IRA, 2012. Section 8 (1) (d) of the IRA, 2012, provides that the executive of a trade union shall not exceed the prescribed limit and shall include not less than 75 percent of persons from among the workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment or establishments, or the industry, for which the trade union has been formed. The proviso states that the condition of being employed in any such establishment or industry “shall not apply to the remaining twenty-five percent of the members of such executives. ” The judgment said the proviso to Section 8 (1) (d) makes it clear that the employment condition prescribed for the minimum 75 percent of the executive does not apply to the remaining 25 percent. It noted that there was a practical rationale for permitting persons from outside the establishment or industry concerned to form part of a trade union’s executive. The executive represents the union in its dealings with management and may be required to negotiate matters involving legal, financial, technical or other specialised considerations. “Permitting a limited proportion of outsiders enables the members of the union, if they so choose, to draw upon persons possessing experience or expertise which may assist them in such negotiations. Such persons may include, depending upon the choice of the union and subject to its constitution and any other applicable law, lawyers, accountants, academics, retired executives, or persons having relevant experience in the same or a related industry, ” the judgment said. The Court said Section 8 (1) (d) of the IRA, 2012, appeared to strike a deliberate balance: it ensured predominant representation of workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment or industry concerned by prescribing a minimum of 75 percent, while leaving room within the remaining 25 percent for persons from outside that category who could be chosen in accordance with the union’s constitution and subject to any other applicable law. It further held that Section 8 (1) (d) did not require the remaining 25 percent of the executive to consist of outsiders. Rather, its requirement was that “not less than seventy-five percent” of the executive be drawn from among the workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment, establishments or industry concerned. This left room for up to 25 percent of the executive to be drawn from persons outside that category, but did not require that the permissible space be filled. The judgment said the petitioner’s individual eligibility to contest the election for a position within the remaining 25 percent of the union’s executive would be determined accordingly. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder