SLIC field workers are not its ‘regular employees’: FCC

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that field workers are not considered regular employees of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, as per Regulation 2(c) of the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973. The court, led by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, agreed with the Supreme Court's earlier judgments that field workers are not categorized as regular employees under the said regulations.

These regulations define an employee as a full-time employee of the corporation on a monthly salary, excluding salaried field officials whose salaries depend on procuring and securing business.

The Federal Constitutional Court stressed that the contractual arrangements for sales managers, sales officers, and sales representatives differ from those applicable to employees under the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973. These field workers earn their income based on a percentage or commission derived from the insurance policies and clients they bring in.

The filing of the petition stemmed from Agha Sohail Kamran, the Secretary General of the State Life Field Workers Association, who sought to register the trade union, State Life Field Workers Association, obtaining registration Certificate No.4/2013 dated 31.12.2013. However, the State Life Corporation rejected its application for recognition as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) of the corporation under Section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, highlighting that field workers are not permanent employees of the corporation.

The corporation subsequently sought to cancel the workers' association registration under Section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, but this application was dismissed. The State Life Corporation challenged this order before the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed it, leading to the current petition. The petitioner's legal counsel argued that the employment contract explicitly states that field workers are not employees of the corporation, thus requesting the setting aside of the impugned order.

The respondent's counsel countered, stating that according to Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, a worker and workman are defined as individuals engaged for remuneration, directly or through a contractor, without restricting their relationship to a regular employee or any specific mode of payment. They maintained that respondents are employees of the corporation, as they receive commissions in lieu of their service, although they do not function as regular staff of the State Life Corporation but carry out tasks under its supervisory control.