ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M/s Reko Diq Mining Company, ruling that “exclusive jurisdiction” clauses in employment contracts cannot be used to “oppress” workers or oust the statutory jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC).
A single bench comprising Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas observed that while commercial entities are free to choose forums for dispute resolution, such freedom is not absolute in employment contracts where an “inequality of bargaining power” exists.
The controversy arose from an employment contract offered to Rubina Musa, a safety officer at Reko Diq’s mining site in District Chagai, Balochistan.
The contract included “Clause 14”, stipulating that any dispute would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Islamabad and governed by the laws of the Islamabad Capital Territory.
Court rejects Reko Diq plea, notes exclusive jurisdiction clauses in contracts may amount to ‘engine of oppression’
After the company terminated her services in September 2024, Ms Musa filed a grievance petition before the NIRC bench in Quetta. The mining company challenged the move, arguing that the Quetta bench lacked jurisdiction because the employee had voluntarily signed a contract restricting legal recourse to Islamabad.
Representing the petitioner, senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that the parties had “consciously and voluntarily” agreed to the Islamabad forum. He maintained that the choice of a specific forum neither offended public policy nor the Contract Act of 1872.
However, Justice Minhas, in his 17-page judgement, noted that employment contracts often fall under “standard-form” or “boilerplate” agreements in which the employee has “little or no real opportunity to negotiate”.
The court observed that the respondent was required merely to “sign on the dotted line” to secure her livelihood, leaving her with no option but to accept the company’s terms.
Invoking the “doctrine of unconscionability”, the IHC held that courts must intervene when a dominant party exploits economic necessity to secure unfair advantages.
The judgement cited the landmark theory of Lord Denning and inter-national precedents from the Canadian Supreme Court (Uber v. Heller) to emphasise that the “sanctity of contract” must yield to the “overarching principles of fairness andjustice” when a clause is used as an “engine of oppression”.
The court further clarified the legal status of the NIRC under the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012. Justice Minhas ruled that the NIRC is a federal body with nationwide jurisdiction, and its Quetta bench is not a “distinct forum” but merely a seat of the same federal commission.
“Allowing employers to circumvent the statutory forum by embedding exclusive jurisdiction clauses would defeat the very purpose of the Act and undermine the legislative intent,” the court held.
By dismissing the petition, the IHC cleared the way for the NIRC’s Quetta bench to proceed with the worker’s grievance. The court concluded that jurisdiction flows from the statute, not from private agreements designed to hinder access to justice.
Published in Dawn, March 15th, 2026
