Law: Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Section: 33, 53

Law: Contract Act, 1872

Section: 28

Law: National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016

Section: 4

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 10

Tagline

Enforceability of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in Employment Contracts: Doctrine of Unconscionability and the Statutory Mandate of the NIRC over Trans-Provincial Industrial Disputes.

Summary

The petitioner, Reko Diq Mining Pvt. Ltd., assailed an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which upheld the jurisdiction of the NIRC Single Member at Quetta to adjudicate a grievance petition filed by a terminated employee (the respondent). The petitioner’s primary contention was based on Clause 14 of the employment contract, which stipulated "exclusive jurisdiction" for the courts in Islamabad, arguing that the Quetta Bench lacked territorial authority and the petition should have been returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, establishing a critical distinction between commercial and employment contracts. While parties may choose between concurrent forums in commercial transactions, the Court found that employment contracts involve an inherent "inequality of bargaining power." Applying the Doctrine of Unconscionability, the Court held that standard-form "take-it-or-leave-it" contracts imposing oppressive jurisdiction clauses on vulnerable employees cannot be used to defeat the ends of justice or oust statutory jurisdiction.