Asif Javed is a former union leader. Due to his role in organising labour struggles, he is fired from his job by his multinational company in 2016, namely Nestle Pakistan, without due compensation. As a result, Mr. Javed files a petition in the labour court which eventually decides in his favour and directs the employers to pay him his dues. The employers file an appeal in the National Industrial Relations Commission. The appeal fails – they are directed to reinstate Mr. Javed and pay him his dues. Relentless, the company then files a writ petition in the Lahore High Court to evade paying Mr. Javed’s dues.
The case remains pending for five years. Judges delay on procedural technicalities. One hearing, Mr. Javed walks out of Justice Shujaat Ali Khan’s courtroom, and sets himself on fire. He succumbed to his injuries on March 1, 2025.
Much can be said about justice in Pakistan – and, nothing less than this: The courtrooms of legal Justice cannot solely sustain the battles of the marginalised. A man was punished and killed for being part of organised labour struggle – in contravention of his dignity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, freedom of speech enshrined in Article 19, freedom to associate and unionise enshrined in Article 17, as well as Section 18 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 which prevents unfair labour practices by the employer. Despite all of these laws, both constitutional and statutory, unjust labour conditions are still cemented in the very roots of our industrial relations. The reasons are so very hard to grasp and so very easy to misunderstand: one might think that it is the Pakistani awam which is jahil. That it is the Pakistani government that is corrupt. That it is our institutions which do not implement.
For one, I do not believe that the Pakistani awam or any awam is jahil. But anyhow, these are all symptoms of a much larger disease: footprints of the shadow, never the monster itself.
The true nightmare lies beyond the veil of fancy terms and specialist jargon.
There is the earth-shaking epiphany that law does not lead to behavioral changes – especially, when it concerns the elite because it provides them inherent mechanisms to escape the consequences of their exploitative actions against the masses, the ‘common man’. And it is not only because they can influence the bureaucrat, or the politicians, or the judge. No, the honest man might never get justice even in the hands of the most conscientious adjudicator, the most honest politician, the most valiant police officer (for instance). And that is simply because in the legal system that we live in, the law insists on treating everyone not just equally but also as equals. And it seems like one is speaking against the political sensitivities of our circle when it is posited: that is a bad thing. And not just bad at that, but ineffective and counter-productive.
The power dynamic is much too skewed: the labourer slaves hours of his life away, isolated not only from the fruits of the profit of his labour, but also from the rest of the society
The circle might be wondering: does not equality before the law (Article 25 of the Constitution) elevate the poor man to the status of rich, and assume him to be as dignified before law as another? The same question may be flipped: does not equality before the law assume the rich man to have the same privileges, powers, and experiences as the poor? He does not – he has far more privileges and powers than the common man. In equalising the two, the law inherently masks and reifies existing inequalities within society.
In the context of labour law, the rights of a corporation ought never to be weighed equally against the rights of a labourer whose work constitutes its very foundations, and yet whose person will never receive a share of that corporation. The power dynamic is much too skewed: the labourer slaves hours of his life away, isolated not only from the fruits of the profit of his labour, but also from the rest of the society – his family, because his hours are spent making ends meet just to survive, his fellows. After all, his hours are spent making ends meet just to survive, and his self, because his hours are spent making ends meet just to survive. All while corporate leaders sit in their fine seats, secure. Never worrying about the roof over their heads, or how many meals are still left in the refrigerator to feed themselves and their children. While they earn lakhs, if not crores, at the cost of their comfort lies the plight of the alienated labourer.
The sheer number of appeals and fora allotted to this Multinational Corporation in this instance (as would have been available to the labourer) proves how treating the two equally is killing the common man. Asif Javed is dead. He had not received his salary for almost a decade, having been fired in 2015. He spent a decade of his life running around courtrooms, praying for justice. Many spend even more.
The system is therefore skewed, not only because of a lack of implementation or a back-log of cases. Just the sheer number of appeals afforded to the corporations in this instance provides enough time for the employers to shirk away from their responsibilities towards their workers to unfairly subdue labour movement in their ranks. And they do this through law, even when one uses the most generous characterisation of the system.
With regards to the decisions of labour courts, an appeal ought to lie directly to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court has the resources to sustain its original jurisdiction under Article 184 (3), even after the 26th Amendment, the honourable Court may find that it can sustain this particular segment of society as well. The burden of proof ought to be shifted to the party more privileged. And the Courts must take into account the structural position of the parties in society, shedding the mask of neutrality where it must.
But the most important shift must happen on the ground: unions must be strengthened. In the post-neoliberal era, only labour mobilisation and organisation can save the dignity of the common man.