FCC Allows State Life’s Challenge to Field Workers’ Union Registration

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan has allowed State Life Insurance Corporation’s challenge in a dispute over registration of its field-workers’ association as a trade union. The Court held that the impugned decision could not stand because relevant law and earlier decisions concerning the field workers’ status had been overlooked. It converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. (Paragraphs 8–13.)

The judgment in State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. The Registrar Trade Unions, NIRC, Islamabad and others, FCPLA No. 388 of 2025, is dated 18 September 2026. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi authored it on a bench with Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Aamer Farooq. The FCC register lists upload on 19 October 2026. Both the supplied judgment and the register mark it not approved for reporting.

The case turns on State Life’s regulations, the particular field-worker contracts and the earlier decisions examined by the Court. It should not be expressed as a universal rule that everyone paid by commission is excluded from all labour protections. (Paragraphs 6 and 8–12.)

Relevant part of the judgment: the appeal was allowed

The following is the relevant extract from paragraph 13, on page 8. This is part of the judgment, not the full judgment:

In this view of the matter, we are of a considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained before us as it was passed oblivious to relevant law, therefore, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed.

Read or download the full 8-page judgment (PDF). The official FCC judgment PDF is also available.

How the registration dispute reached the FCC

The State Life Field Workers Association obtained registration on 31 December 2013 under Certificate No. 4/2013. State Life challenged the registration under section 11 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, contending that the field workers were not its employees within Regulation 2(c) of the 1973 Service Regulations. The Registrar dismissed that cancellation application on 11 March 2019. (Paragraphs 1–2.)

The Islamabad High Court upheld the Registrar’s decision in WP No. 2023 of 2019. The FCC title page identifies the challenged judgment as dated 23 October 2025; paragraph 1 describes it as dated 1 September 2025 and announced on 23 October 2025. This report preserves that distinction rather than presenting both dates as separate judgments. (Paragraph 1.)

The association had also applied under section 19 IRA to be declared the Collective Bargaining Agent. Paragraph 2 records that this application was rejected on 21 April 2021 because the field workers were not permanent employees, and that the rejection was not challenged according to the record. Registration and CBA recognition were therefore related issues, but the earlier CBA rejection should not be reported as a new order made in this FCC appeal.

The competing arguments about worker status

State Life relied on the 1973 Service Regulations, the field workers’ contracts and earlier decisions. Its counsel said the Supreme Court had already addressed the status question in an order dated 1 November 2005 in CPLA Nos. 868-K and 869-K of 2002, and that later High Court and NIRC decisions following that view had been overlooked. (Paragraph 3.)

The respondents relied on section 2 IRA. They argued that a person engaged for remuneration directly or through a contractor could be a worker regardless of whether the person was a regular employee or received a monthly salary. They pointed to remuneration by commission and performance of functions under the corporation’s supervision and control. (Paragraph 4.)

Paragraph 8 itself records the breadth of the IRA definition and the High Court’s reasoning about commission and supervision. The FCC nevertheless considered the earlier authorities and the specific State Life framework decisive in this case. Reporting the outcome requires acknowledging both the argument and the basis on which the Court rejected the impugned decision. (Paragraphs 8–9.)

What Regulation 2(c) says

The Court examined regulations made under Article 49 of the Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order, 1972, with the previous approval of the Federal Government. Paragraph 6 reproduces the definition of employee under Regulation 2(c). The following is the relevant extract from that reproduced provision, on page 5:

“employee” means a full time employee of the Corporation on monthly salary, but does not include salaried field officials whose emoluments are dependent on procuration of business except those who are classed as Area Managers by the competent authority.

The exception for Area Managers matters. The Court also discussed Regulation 4, the posts and pay scales listed there, and the different treatment of Area Managers on special and ordinary bases. A report which places every field-connected position in one undifferentiated category would lose an express distinction in the source. (Paragraph 6.)

Why the contracts and earlier decisions mattered

Paragraph 9 agrees with the earlier Supreme Court view that the field workers examined there were not regular employees within Regulation 2(c). It notes distinctions concerning Area Managers and Chief Managers and explains that the earlier constitutional petitions had failed on maintainability. Those earlier proceedings supplied part of the reasoning; they were not new petitions decided by this bench.

The Court also referred to the Shahzada Sohail Kamran case and a NIRC decision dated 14 February 2025 which had relied on the Supreme Court’s 2005 order. The FCC considered that relevant decisions had escaped the High Court’s attention. (Paragraphs 8–9.)

Most directly, paragraph 11 identifies the contracts of Sales Managers, Sales Officers and Sales Representatives on the record. Those contracts distinguished the positions from employees under the 1973 Service Regulations, and their earnings depended on a percentage or commission linked to policies and clients procured. These were the specific categories and contractual arrangements the Court examined.

Paragraph 7 records State Life’s explanation that field-worker turnover and failure to meet targets prevented preparation of a stable list. That account was part of the case record; it should not be rewritten as a general statutory rule about every insurance intermediary.

Insurance agency provisions supplied further context

Paragraph 10 discusses the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, including the division between life and non-life business and sections 96–99 concerning agency arrangements. The Court referred to written agency contracts, qualifications, maintenance of an agents’ register and treatment of sums received by agents.

Those provisions formed part of the Court’s examination of the relationship. The immediate outcome, however, concerned the challenged order in this registration dispute, read with the service regulations, contracts and precedents. The judgment does not decide an unrelated claim about payment of a policy, an agent’s individual commission account or every possible employment arrangement. (Paragraphs 10–13.)

Final result and the limits of the operative order

Paragraph 13 converts the petition into an appeal and allows it. The impugned order supporting the outcome challenged by State Life could not stand. The paragraph contains no express remand direction to the Registrar and no separate new determination of the association’s previously rejected CBA application.

For readers dealing with a similar question, the important documents are the applicable service rules, the person’s actual contractual category, the relevant statutory definition and the earlier decisions on that relationship. The FCC’s reasoning should be cited with those features and with its express reporting status. (Paragraphs 6 and 8–13.)

For related material, see the judgment library and our articles.

Reporting-status note

Not approved for reporting, as expressly marked on page 8 and in the official FCC register. No reporter or neutral citation is printed in the supplied copy. Judgment date: 18 September 2026; official upload listed: 19 October 2026.

Sources and full judgment

• Full supplied 8-page judgment PDF.
• Official FCC judgment PDF.
• Official FCC judgments register, which lists upload on 19 October 2026.

Case: State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. The Registrar Trade Unions, NIRC, Islamabad and others. FCPLA No. 388 of 2025. Date: 18 September 2026. Bench: Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Author: Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Not approved for reporting. No reporter or neutral citation is printed in the supplied copy.

Frequently asked questions

What did the FCC decide in the State Life union case?

It converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the impugned order could not stand because it overlooked relevant law. (Paragraph 13.)

Which field-worker categories did the judgment examine?

Paragraph 11 refers to the contracts of Sales Managers, Sales Officers and Sales Representatives, whose earnings depended on the policies and clients procured. The Court distinguished these categories from employees under the service regulations.

Does commission payment alone settle every worker’s labour rights?

The judgment must be read through State Life’s particular service regulations, contracts and prior decisions. Paragraph 8 also records the broad remuneration-based definition in section 2 IRA. The ruling should not be turned into a universal statement about every commission-paid worker.

Were Area Managers treated identically to the field staff?

No. The reproduced Regulation 2(c) expressly excepts persons classified as Area Managers by the competent authority, and paragraphs 6 and 9 discuss distinctions concerning managerial categories.

What happened to the association’s CBA application?

Paragraph 2 records that the section 19 application had been rejected on 21 April 2021 and, according to the record, was not challenged. That was an earlier decision, rather than a separate new CBA order made by the FCC.

Did the FCC expressly order a remand to the Registrar?

No express remand direction appears in paragraph 13. The operative result is conversion of the petition into an appeal and allowance of that appeal.

Is the judgment approved for reporting?

No. Page 8 expressly marks it not approved for reporting, and the official register gives the same status. It is dated 18 September 2026 and was listed as uploaded on 19 October 2026.