Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Jamshed Ahmed vs Government of Punjab1991 CLC 841 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Jamal Din Etc vs Additional District Judge, Jhang, Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 66 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Jalal Khan And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Jalal Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Jalal Din And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Jalal Din Alias Abdur Rehman And 4 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2248 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Jahan Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
• Islam Ud Din vs Allah NawazK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 283 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmad alias Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Aisha Bibi and others1991 MLD 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Irshad Mahmood vs The State1991 MLD 1993 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• Irshad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1768 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Irrigation Tubewells Workers' Union (Regd.) vs Irrigation Tubewells1991 PLC 171 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17
  Collective Bargaining AgentTrade UnionIndustrial Relations OrdinanceSecret BallotRegistrar of Trade UnionsLabour LawCBA Certification
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Registrar of Trade Unions appointing respondent No. 1 as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the Stores and Workshop division of the Irrigation Tubewells. The petitioner, a registered trade union, contended that it also maintained membership within the Stores and Workshop division, thereby rendering the appointment of respondent No. 1 under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 illegal. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could appoint a CBA under Section 22(1) when more than one registered trade union existed for the establishment. The Court held that Section 22(1) is exclusively applicable where only one registered trade union exists. Where multiple unions operate, the Registrar is legally bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 22(2), which mandates a secret ballot to determine the CBA. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned certificate of appointment illegal and of no legal consequence, emphasizing that the existence of multiple unions necessitates a democratic selection process rather than a unilateral declaration by the Registrar.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Collective Bargaining Agent be appointed under Section 22(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when more than one trade union is registered for an establishment?
  • Is the procedure of secret ballot under Section 22(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 mandatory when multiple trade unions exist in an establishment?
  • Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the authority to unilaterally appoint a Collective Bargaining Agent without a secret ballot where multiple unions claim membership?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqrar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 431 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
• Iqrar Ahmad And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 669 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
• Iqbal vs Mst. Jainan Bibi1991 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-15
  ex parte decreecondonation of delaylimitationfraudcollusioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil revision against the dismissal of his appeal and the refusal of the lower courts to condone the delay in filing an appeal against an ex parte decree. The core legal question concerned whether the time spent prosecuting concurrent or successive remedies, such as applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, could be excluded or condoned under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when filing a belated appeal against an ex parte decree. The Lahore High Court held that where a party consciously elects to pursue a remedy like Section 12(2) CPC and fails on merits, and subsequently pursues frivolous or repetitive proceedings without good faith, the time spent therein cannot be condoned under Section 5 or Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The court affirmed that concurrent remedies are available against an ex parte decree, but prosecuting a remedy unsuccessfully on merits does not constitute sufficient cause to excuse delay in filing an appeal. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time spent prosecuting an unsuccessful application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 when filing an appeal against an ex parte decree?
  • Can the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 be extended to a party who pursues repetitive and frivolous proceedings after failing on merits in an application to set aside an ex parte decree?
  • Are the remedies for setting aside an ex parte decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 concurrent until a decision is rendered in either of them?
  • Whether a collusively obtained decree can be challenged through an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal vs (Mst) JainanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-15Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur1991 CLC 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Inayat vs Mst. Jalan1991 CLC 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah vs American Life Insurance Co. LtdK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 514 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with1991 MLD 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-27Read full judgment →
• Inayat Masih And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Inayat Khan vs Amir Dad and OtherK.L.R. 1991 CivU Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
• Inayat Hussain alias Inayat Ullah vs Nasrullah and another1991 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• Inayat Bibi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Ali vs Muhammad Tufail1991 MLD 48 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-26
  civil revisionstatement on solemn affirmationoaths actinadmissible evidenceremand of caseappellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil suit for possession of a house based on ownership, which was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the parties' counsel agreed to have a third party, Muhammad Ameen Lambardar, summoned as a solitary witness and to have the suit and appeal decided based solely on his statement without cross-examination. The appellate court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit based on the witness's statement. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, arguing that the statement recorded on solemn affirmation was inadmissible as a specific oath had been prescribed by the High Court pursuant to amendments in the Oaths Act. The High Court accepted the revision, held that the statement recorded on solemn affirmation in disregard of the prescribed oath was inadmissible and irrelevant, set aside the appellate court's judgment and decree, and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement recorded on solemn affirmation in disregard of the oath prescribed by the High Court under the Oaths Act is admissible in evidence?
  • Can an appellate court base its judgment on a witness statement that is legally inadmissible?
  • What is the effect of recording a witness's statement contrary to the prescribed procedure under the Oaths Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Masth vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Imran alias Ashfaque Taddi vs The State1991 PLD Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali vs Syed Nabi Muhammad1991 CLC 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Imam Din vs Muhammad Jamil through Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh and others vs Additional District Judge1991 CLC 842 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ilyas vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 325 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din vs Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Aleem And 9 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2296 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah Bajwa vs The Chairman, City and Regional Planning1991 MLD 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain and anothers vs Muhammad Aslam and others1991 MLD 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali Khan and 9 others vs The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore and 4 others1991 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Iftikhar Alam and others vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-08
  coram non judicedepartmental examinationlocus poenitentiaeaudi alteram partemservice mattercompetent authorityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the cancellation of the petitioners' promotion to BPS-16, which followed their success in the departmental examination conducted under the Punjab (Buildings and Highways) Sub-Engineer Professional Examination Rules, 1977. The petitioners were initially promoted by the competent authority but were subsequently demoted after the Secretary, Communication and Works Department, cancelled the examination results. The core legal question is whether the Secretary had the authority to cancel the examination results and whether the subsequent demotion order was valid. The Court held that the order was a nullity, characterizing it as coram non judice. The Court reasoned that the competent authority had acted mechanically under the dictates of the Secretary without applying an independent mind, and the petitioners were denied the right to be heard. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the constitutional bar under Article 212 does not apply where the impugned order is passed by an incompetent authority. The key principle laid down is that an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction or without the application of an independent mind is a nullity in the eye of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to orders passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction?
  • Can a competent authority cancel a promotion order without applying an independent mind and merely acting on the dictates of a superior?
  • Is an administrative order passed without providing an opportunity of being heard valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed vs Mst. Suraya Jamil and others1991 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 293 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Syed Muhammad1991 MLD 191 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad Alias Popi vs The State1991PCr.LJ 129 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Iffat Mir vs Mobeen Qasim Mir1991 P Cr. L J 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-01
  habeas corpuscustody of minorhizanatMuslim Lawforeign court orderillegal detentionnatural guardianwelfare of the minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor son, aged six, who was being retained by the father in Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, could order the restoration of a minor's custody to the mother when the father had forcibly retained the child, despite a foreign court order granting custody to the mother. The Court held that under Muslim Law, the mother is entitled to the hizanat (custody) of a male child until he reaches seven years of age, and the father’s retention of the child without legal authority or a court order rendered his custody illegal or improper. The Court affirmed that it possesses the jurisdiction to restore custody to the rightful guardian under Section 491(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as this constitutes dealing with the minor according to law. The principle established is that while custody disputes are primarily for Guardian Courts, the High Court may intervene to restore custody to the mother where the child is illegally or improperly detained.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor to the mother if the father has retained the child without a court order?
  • Does the mother have a legal right to the custody of a male child under seven years of age under Muslim Law?
  • Is a foreign court's custody order relevant when determining the legality of a minor's detention in Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court order the production of a minor under Section 491(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 even if the detention is not found to be illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Maqbool Ahmad1991 P Cr. L J 2293 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Etc vs Sardar Khan Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 121) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-10Read full judgment →
• I Lahore] Mian Hamidul Haq and others vs Taj Company Ltd.1991 MLD 841 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06
  companies ordinancecompromise or arrangementclass of creditorscreditors meetingtaj company limiteddeposit schemeboard of administratorswinding up
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was filed by 77 depositors of Taj Company Limited seeking a court-ordered meeting of a class of creditors to propose an arrangement to safeguard deposits, initially through converting deposits into shares or equity, and later modified to issuing redeemable and transferable debentures. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners constituted a distinct 'class of creditors' under the Ordinance, whether the proposed arrangement was feasible, bona fide, and reasonable, and whether the company's consent was a prerequisite. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power to order a meeting under section 284 is discretionary and requires judicial satisfaction regarding the feasibility, reasonableness, and bona fides of the scheme. The Court held that persons making a proposal cannot arbitrarily constitute themselves a separate 'class of creditors' merely based on commonality of desire for that specific proposal, as a class must consist of persons whose rights are sufficiently similar to consult for common interest. Furthermore, an arrangement under the section requires the company's consent. Since the proposal lacked feasibility, statutory backing, and the company's or majority creditors' consent, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court has discretionary power under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to order a meeting of creditors only after being satisfied with the feasibility and bona fides of the proposed scheme?
  • Can a group of creditors constitute a distinct 'class of creditors' under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 merely by virtue of sharing a common interest in a specific proposed arrangement?
  • Is the consent of the company a necessary prerequisite for the court to order a compromise or arrangement meeting under section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether unsecured creditors who have filed suits or obtained decrees are deemed to be of the same class as other unsecured creditors under section 284(6) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• Humayun vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Hilbro (Pvt.) Limited and anothers vs Ejaz Ahmad Chatha and another1991 MLD 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-13Read full judgment →
• Highnoon Laboratories Limited vs Mst. Farida Jawaid Malik and another1991 CLC 271 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Hassan Muhammad Khan vs Aslam ShamiK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 107 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-09Read full judgment →
• Hassan Din vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Hashmal Khan vs Umaid Khan and others1991 MLD 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1991 MLD 870 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Ghulam Hussain and 8 others1991 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14
  inheritanceMahomedan Lawresiduariessuccessioncivil revisionproximity of linepreferential right
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition concerns a dispute over the inheritance of 5/24 share of land left by the deceased, Sikandar Khan. The core legal question was determining the preferential right of inheritance between two rival claimants, both claiming to be residuaries of the deceased. The Revenue authorities had initially favored the petitioner, Haq Nawaz, but later reversed this in favor of the respondent, Jiwana, based on the degree of relationship. The Lahore High Court examined the principles of Mahomedan Law regarding the succession of residuaries. The Court held that the petitioner, being a descendant of a common ancestor (Gama Khan) in a nearer line, was entitled to succeed as a residuary in preference to the respondent, despite the respondent's claim based on a different line of descent. The Court established the principle that in the absence of specific provisions, the rule of proximity of line governs the succession of residuaries, where a nearer line succeeds in preference to a more remote line, even if the remote line claimant is closer in the actual number of steps.

  Questions settled

  • In Islamic law of inheritance, does a residuary in a nearer line succeed in preference to a residuary in a more remote line, even if the latter is closer in the actual number of steps to the deceased?
  • Does the principle of proximity of line apply to the succession of residuaries in the absence of specific statutory provisions?
  • Can a civil court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct errors in the application of inheritance laws by lower appellate courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haonawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 807 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Hamid Qayyum and others vs Muhammad Azeem and others1991 CLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Hamid Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 958 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali Almakki and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Taj Din Etc vs Govt. of Punjab EtcK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 650 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Shah vs Hakim Khan and others1991 CLC 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Islam vs Muhammad Rafique and 2 others1991 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24
  civil revisionspecific performancememorandum of appeallimitation periodprocedural technicalityrejection of appeallaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for possession through specific performance. The trial court decreed the suit, and the petitioner appealed. The appellate court directed the petitioner to annex Appendix 'G' to the memo of appeal. Due to the unavailability of a printed form, a handwritten form was prepared, but the appellate court rejected the memo of appeal under Order XLI Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the omission of the jurisdictional valuation column. The petitioner eventually filed a revision petition in the High Court after a delay of about one year and eight months. The High Court addressed whether the revision petition was barred by limitation or laches, and whether the appellate court erred in rejecting the appeal. The High Court held that no specific limitation period is prescribed for filing a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 provides a three-year residuary period. On merits, the Court ruled that minor clerical errors in the form of appeal should be corrected rather than leading to rejection, emphasizing that procedural technicalities must not obstruct the administration of justice. The revision was allowed, and the case was remanded.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period applicable to a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of a specific statutory provision?
  • Can a memorandum of appeal be rejected under Order XLI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for minor clerical errors or omissions in the jurisdictional valuation column of Appendix 'G'?
  • Whether procedural technicalities in filing forms should be allowed to defeat the adjudication of a civil appeal on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Additional District Judge and others1991 MLD 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and 24 others1991 CLC 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf vs Mian Muhammad Akhtar1991 MLD 2718 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Ladhoo Etc vs M.B.R. EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Ladhoo and others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 99 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Khushi Mohammad vs A.C. Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Jewana vs Nadir Ali and others1991 CLC 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Butt and others vs National Bank of Pakistan1991 CLC 778 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Atta Muhammad vs Abdul Rasheed1991 CLC 1341 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Altaf Ansari vs Divisional Superintendent, Railways1991 PLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Razaq and others vs Muhammad Ishaq and others1991 CLC 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Yunus And 9 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz vs M Uham Ma D Yunus and others1991 MLD 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Haider Farooq vs Mst.Mahmooda BegumK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 277 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
• Haider Far000 vs Mst. Mahmood Begum and 8 others1991 MLD 310 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Haji Imdad Ullah And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Begum and others vs Muhammad Yousuf and others1991 CLC 850 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ul-Haq vs The Sargroh Vegetable Ghee and General Mills and others1991 PLC 899 · Lahore High Court
  Industrial Relations Ordinancegrievance petitionpresentation of petitionlegal practitionerLabour Courtstatutory interpretationCivil Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench of the Lahore High Court was constituted to resolve a question of law referred by a Division Bench regarding whether the presentation of a grievance petition by a worker personally is an essential requirement under subsection (4) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court examined the statutory text, noting that while subsection (1) explicitly includes the word 'himself', subsection (4) deliberately omits it. The Court held that subsections (1) and (4) cater to distinct situations—domestic grievance handling versus adjudication before a court-like forum—and therefore need not be read conjunctively. Furthermore, by virtue of section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Order III, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, proceedings before a Labour Court permit appearance and presentation through a pleader or legal practitioner. The Court concluded that the presentation of a petition by a worker personally is not mandatory under subsection (4) of section 25-A, answering the reference in the negative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the presentation of a grievance petition by a worker himself is an essential requirement of subsection (4) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Do subsections (1) and (4) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have to be read conjunctively?
  • Can a worker present a grievance petition before a Labour Court through an advocate or legal practitioner?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs Muhammad Yousaf(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 55) · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 2 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-17Read full judgment →
• Habib and others vs Munawar and 5 others1991 MLD 984 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs Sardar Ali1991 CLC 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Masih and others vs Sardar Ali and others1991 CLC 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 229 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
• Gulab Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher and 3 others vs The State1991 MLD 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz Lone Etc vs S.H.OK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 258 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• Guddar vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1692 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Department of Education, Lahore vs Prof. Mst. Jamida Malik and another1991 MLD 824 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-16
  date of birth correctioncivil servantterms and conditions of servicejurisdiction of civil courtPunjab Service Tribunalcause of actionrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed by the Government of Punjab impugning the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below, which decreed the respondent-plaintiff's suit for a declaration regarding her correct date of birth and consequential mandatory injunction directing the University of Punjab and the Education Department to incorporate the change. The core legal questions involved whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit concerning the date of birth of a civil servant when it directly affects the date of retirement and terms and conditions of service, and whether the suit disclosed a cause of action against the Provincial Government. The Lahore High Court held that a change in the date of birth directly alters the date of retirement, which forms an integral part of the terms and conditions of a civil servant's service, and is therefore barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 3(2) and section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court further held that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against the petitioner-Government and was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The revision petition was accepted and the lower courts' judgments were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a suit seeking the correction of a civil servant's date of birth when it alters their date of retirement?
  • Is a suit for the correction of a date of birth by a civil servant barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it discloses no cause of action against a defendant government department?
  • Are the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive regarding the rejection of a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through District Collector, Multan and 21991 CLC 115 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Ahmad vs Shaheen Bibi and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15
  constitutional petitionregistration of criminal caseex parte decreefamily courtfraud and misrepresentationsub judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking a direction to the police for the registration of a criminal case against the respondents regarding allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining a family court decree. The core legal question concerned whether a constitutional petition for the registration of a criminal case is maintainable while the underlying civil and family matters, including an application to set aside an ex parte decree, are sub judice before the competent family court. The Court held that since the dispute and the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were pending adjudication before the Family Court, no direction for the registration of a case should be issued at this stage. The principle laid down is that constitutional remedies for police registration of criminal cases should not preempt matters actively sub judice in specialized forums, and the trial court itself is empowered to initiate proceedings under sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it concludes an offense was committed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition for the registration of a criminal case be entertained while the underlying matter is sub judice before a Family Court?
  • What is the procedure for a Family Court to take action if an offense is committed in relation to proceedings before it under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a direction can be issued to the police for registration of a case when an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is pending adjudication?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab vs Professor (Mst). Jamida Malik and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 220) · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →