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.

• Sada vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
• Saadullah Khan and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Saadia Perveen Akhtar vs Humayun Iqbal1983 CLC 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
• S. Inamul Haq vs The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan1983 CLC 1954 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Ali Hassan and Others vs Vicechancellor Punjab University and Another1983 CLC 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ruqqaiya Sultana vs Muhammad Younus1983 CLC 2554 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
• Salhoon vs Mst. Jawai and Another1983 CLC 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• Rodolf Josef vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1983 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
• Riaz Begum vs Farooq Ahmad and Others1983 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• Riaz and 8 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs Capital Development Authority1983 CLC 809 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha1983 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rehmat vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1561 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs Nazir Ahmad1983 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Bibi and Another vs Hafiz Shamasuddin and Others1983 CLC 2563 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali and Another vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 Others1983 CLC 1052 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• Raziuddin vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Rasulan Bibi vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 208 (2) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Rasool and Others vs Assistant Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 3171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State- Respondent1983P Cr. L J 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Gardee vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rasheed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2420 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Yasin vs Presiding Officer, Noconfidence Motion1983 CLC 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• Roshan Din Bha Tti vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1945 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Hafiz Khan vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and OTHERSs1983 CLC 3145 · Lahore High Court · 1973-12-11Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalilurrehman vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 21983 PLD Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12
  ejectmentbona fide requirementimpairment of utilityunauthorized conversionresidential premisesconstitutional jurisdictionrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which reversed the Rent Controller's order and ordered the petitioner's eviction from the disputed premises on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement and material impairment of the property's utility through unauthorized additions and alterations. The core legal questions involved whether a residential building converted to non-residential use remains residential in character, whether structural changes impairing utility justify eviction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and the scope of High Court's constitutional jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact by appellate tribunals. The Lahore High Court held that a composite or residential building retains its residential character despite unauthorized conversion, that impairing either the value or the utility of the property independently warrants eviction, and that the appellate court's findings based on proper evidence and law are unexceptionable in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that the terms 'value' and 'utility' in section 13(2)(iii) of the 1959 Ordinance are independent alternatives, and that unauthorized conversion of residential premises to commercial use violates section 11 of the Ordinance and public policy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a residential building retain its residential character even if it is put to non-residential use with or without the landlord's consent?
  • Are the terms 'value' and 'utility' under section 13(2)(iii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to be read as independent alternatives?
  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact by an appellate court under its constitutional jurisdiction when such findings are in accordance with the law and supported by evidence?
  • Does the unauthorized conversion of a residential premises into a non-residential one constitute an impairment of its utility for residential purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Abu Bakar vs Mst. Sadaqat Begum and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Ali vs District Magistrate, Sargodha and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Amir and 14 others vs Province of the Punjab and 21983 PLD Lahore 355 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-02
  land acquisitionpublic purposecompany acquisitionjudicial reviewsuitability of sitemala fideProvisional Constitution Order 1981
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the Dandot Cement Project of the State Cement Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. The petitioners contended that the respondent Corporation was a company under Section 3(e) of the Act requiring compliance with Part VII procedure, that quarrying clay did not constitute a public purpose or 'work' under Section 40, and that the acquisition was mala fide due to the availability of alternative uncultivable land. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that acquisition for an industry established and financed by the government using public funds serves a public purpose, making compliance with Part VII unnecessary. It further ruled that 'work' under Section 40(1)(aa) broadly encompasses all operations essential to running a factory, including raw material excavation. Finally, the Court affirmed that the selection and suitability of a site fall within the exclusive domain of acquiring authorities and are not subject to judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction absent specific proof of mala fides.

  Questions settled

  • Does land acquisition for a state-owned enterprise financed by public funds constitute acquisition for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does the term 'work' in Section 40(1)(aa) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include the excavation of raw materials required for running an industrial factory?
  • Is the determination of the suitability or choice of site by an acquiring authority open to judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What standard of pleading and proof is required to establish mala fides in land acquisition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Bashir Ahmad and Others vs Muhammad Ramzan and Others1983 CLC 579 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-19Read full judgment →
• Rais Rahim Bakhsh vs Ghausia Corporation and Another1983 CLC 312 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and Others vs Pir Bakhsh1983 CLC 3313 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and Another vs Tile State1983 PLD Lahore 397 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad Khan and Another vs Mahboob Ahmad and Others1983 CLC 1529 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Abbas Zaidi vs Mst. Shahida Begum and Others1983 CLC 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-01Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Iqbal vs Nisar Ali Shah (A.S.I.) and Others1983 P Cr. L J 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-25Read full judgment →
• Qasimi Jewellers vs National Bank of Pakistan1983 CLC 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Punjab Social Security Institution vs General Secretary, Mazdoor1983 PLC 390 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board vs Tanvir Ahmad and 4 Others1983 CLC 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1983 PLC 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board vs Muhammad Fazil Hussain and Another1983 PLD Lahore 531 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31
  probationertermination of serviceindustrial relationswrit petitionmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from the termination of the respondent's services as an Overseer on an ad hoc basis during his probationary period by the Punjab Road Transport Board. The respondent challenged his termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Punjab Labour Court, which allowed the petition on the ground that the termination order failed to state explicit reasons as required by paragraph 12(3) of the Schedule to the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Board's appeal in limine. The Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that when an employer terminates a probationer's services explicitly during the probation period, that reference itself constitutes sufficient reason satisfying paragraph 12(3), as a probationer's employment is tentative and at the pleasure of the employer pending confirmation. The Court concluded that the tribunals below misread the termination order, rendering their decisions subject to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the termination of a probationer's services during the probation period requires explicit specification of reasons other than the fact of probation under paragraph 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance?
  • Does a termination order stating that a probationer's services are terminated within probation carry the necessary incident of employer dissatisfaction to satisfy statutory requirements?
  • Can a probationer approach the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance when his services are terminated during probation without stigma?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province vs Zafar Iqbal Cheema1983 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and Another vs Mian Faqir Sain1983 CLC 264 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and Another vs Gulzar Muhammad1983 CLC 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• Punjab National Silk Mills Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan1983 CLC 600 · Lahore High Court · 1968-05-07Read full judgment →
• Punjab Cooperative Union vs Government of Punjab Excise and Taxation Departmen I and Another1983 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
• Punjab Civil Accounts Association vs Finance Minister, Government1983 PLC (C. S.) 76 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-30Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan vs Raja Bashir Muhammad Khan1983 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab vs Ch. Fazal Karim, District Judge, Faisalabad1983 CLC 325 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05
  writ jurisdictionrent restrictionejectmentMartial Law Regulation 118nationalizationbona fide personal needconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding an ejectment order against the Province of the Punjab. The petitioner, having taken over the management of a private school under Martial Law Regulation No. 118, argued that it became the owner of the premises by operation of law, thereby rendering the eviction proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, without jurisdiction. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Martial Law Regulation No. 118 only vested the management of educational institutions in the Government, not the ownership of the underlying property. The Court affirmed that the original owners retained their proprietary rights and that nationalized institutions remain subject to the Rent Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default and bona fide personal need, noting that such findings are not subject to review in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine, emphasizing that the Rent Ordinance applies to nationalized institutions and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the takeover of a private school under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 vest ownership of the school's premises in the Government?
  • Are nationalized educational institutions exempt from the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding default and personal need in the exercise of writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Project Director, Housing & Physical1983 PLD Lahore 578 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11
  Land Acquisition Actreference to civil courtlimitation periodwaiver of limitationpotential valuemarket value determinationSection 18 referencesolariumburden of proof on claimant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab against the decision of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, which enhanced compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and rejected the Government's plea of limitation. The Land Acquisition Collector had filed an award in 1963 without issuing notice under Section 12(2). Respondents applied for a reference in 1964 (rejected as time-barred) and again in 1976 after the High Court directed issuance of notices. The Collector made the reference while requesting its dismissal for being barred by limitation. The High Court considered whether the reference was time-barred and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine limitation, as well as the adequacy of the compensation assessed on potential building value. The Court held that the civil court possesses jurisdiction to examine whether a reference under Section 18 is barred by limitation and that making a reference does not constitute a waiver by the Collector. Under Section 18(2)(b), the maximum limitation period is six months from the date of the award, and service of notice years later cannot revive limitation. The Court further held that the burden lies on the claimant to prove an award is inadequate, and potential value cannot be determined speculatively. The appeal was accepted, the lower court's judgment was set aside, and the Collector's award was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does the civil court have jurisdiction to examine the question of limitation in a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does the Collector's act of forwarding an application for reference under Section 18 to the civil court constitute a waiver of the plea of limitation?
  • Does the issuance or service of a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 several years after the award furnish a fresh period of limitation under Section 18(2)(b)?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie in a reference before the court to establish that the compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate or illegal?
  • Can the potential building value of agricultural land be assumed for determining market value without evidence of prior transactions for building use before the acquisition notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad vs The State and 5 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad vs Education Town Cooperative Society Ltd.1983 CLC 3041 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-09Read full judgment →
• Pir Manzoor Ahmed vs Abid Tabizaiz and Others1983 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Piara Khan vs Bashir Ahmad and Others1983 CLC 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 184 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-05Read full judgment →
• Peeran Ditta vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Panna N vs The State1983 PCrLJ 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Pak Chrome Leather Company Ltd.1983 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12
  territorial jurisdictioncorporate personalityseparate legal entitywithholding paymentburden of proofcivil suitcontract performance
  Summary & questions settled

  Pak Chrome Leather Company Limited filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of money against Pakistan through the Ministry of Defence after successfully fulfilling a contract for the supply of boots. The defendant admitted the performance of the contract but withheld payment, claiming that another firm, Messrs Sind Tanneries Limited, allegedly a sister concern, owed money to the Directorate. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. In appeal, the Lahore High Court addressed core questions regarding territorial jurisdiction, the proper institution of the suit, the distinct legal entity of incorporated companies, and the burden of proof. The High Court held that objections to territorial jurisdiction cannot succeed where the case was tried on merits without any consequent failure of justice, that separate incorporated companies cannot be treated as a single entity to satisfy liabilities of sister concerns without discharging the heavy onus of proof, and that procedural technicalities raised by the appellant lacked substance. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an objection to territorial jurisdiction can be entertained by an appellate court where the trial court has decided the case on merits and no failure of justice is shown?
  • Can a government department lawfully withhold undisputed payments due to a company under a fulfilled contract on the ground that a separate sister concern owes money to the government?
  • Does the separate legal entity of an incorporated company get dissolved to merge liabilities with another company merely because both share common directors?
  • On whom lies the burden of proof when a defendant asserts that a plaintiff company and another indebted entity are sister concerns liable for each other's debts?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs National Trading Company (N. T.1983 CLC 1695 · Lahore High Court
  temporary injunctionmandatory injunctionstatus quodistributorship agreementarbitrationprima facie caseinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross civil revision petitions arising out of an order passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, on an application for temporary injunction filed under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal questions pertained to whether an injunction maintaining the supply of goods under a distributorship agreement constitutes an impermissible mandatory injunction, and whether a prima facie case existed for grant of interim relief. The High Court affirmed the lower court's order, dismissing both revision petitions. The Court held that directing a party to continue supplying goods per regular past practice under an un-terminated contract maintains status quo rather than issuing a mandatory injunction. Furthermore, courts may grant mandatory injunctions in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent injustice, and serious arguable questions of law and fact establish a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order directing a manufacturer not to stop supplies to a distributor during pending arbitration proceedings amount to a mandatory injunction or maintenance of status quo?
  • Can a court issue an interim mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 do not apply?
  • Does the existence of a serious arguable question of law and fact satisfy the requirement of a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Cycle Industrial .Co-Operative Society Ltd. vs Punjab1983 PLC 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Mst. Shahana Nasim Akbar Farooqi1983 PLD Lahore 567 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan and Another vs M. Faiz AHMADPlaintiff1983 CLC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03
  contractual disputegoods handling contractarbitration clausestay of proceedingsterritorial jurisdictionlimitation periodestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,94,465 filed by a contractor against Pakistan Railways for services rendered under a goods handling agreement. The core legal question was whether the contractor was entitled to payment under Schedule B(2)(d) of the agreement for handling CR/TR vans, or if the Railways correctly paid him under Schedules A and C, and whether the suit was barred by limitation, estoppel, or an arbitration clause. The Court held that the evidence established the contractor performed the specific services defined in Schedule B(2)(d), and the agreement did not restrict such payments to transit stations only. The Court affirmed the trial court's decree, ruling that the contractor was not estopped from claiming the correct payment despite certifying bills, as he had consistently raised objections. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellants waived their right to invoke the arbitration clause by failing to apply for a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 before filing their written statement. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party waive the right to invoke an arbitration clause if they fail to apply for a stay of proceedings before filing a written statement?
  • Can a contractor claim payment under a specific schedule of an agreement if they previously certified bills under a different schedule?
  • Does a civil court have territorial jurisdiction to hear a suit where the agreement was executed and payments were refused within its jurisdiction?
  • Is a claim for payment under a contract barred if the contractor failed to prefer the claim within the time stipulated in the agreement, despite having raised the issue through correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Pahara and Others vs Board of Revenue, Punjab and Others1983 CLC 3119 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• Nur Ellahi vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 126 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nur Alam vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 312 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State- Respondent1983 P Cr. LJ 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Additional. Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2531 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan and Others vs Muhammad Hayat Shah and Others1983 CLC 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Elahi and 4 Others vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Jhelum1983 CLC 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Bibi vs Ali Muhammd and Others1983 CLC 3135 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and Others vs Khurshid Jahan Begum and Others1983 CLC 2851 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
• Nook Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin vs Central Government of Pakistan, and 4 Others1983 CLC 924 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din and others vs Mst. Zubaida and Others1983 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs Punjab Urban Transport Authority, Lahore and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 661 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-17
  wrongful dismissalback benefitsindustrial disputemisconductreinstatementstanding orderslabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a security guard, was dismissed from service for sleeping on duty, an act characterized by the employer as habitual negligence. The Labour Court found that a solitary instance of sleeping on duty did not constitute misconduct warranting dismissal and ordered reinstatement with back benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal maintained the reinstatement but denied back benefits, citing the petitioner's admitted negligence. The petitioner challenged this denial before the High Court. The core legal question was whether back benefits could be withheld from an employee whose dismissal was declared unlawful. The High Court held that once a dismissal is found unsustainable, withholding back benefits is unlawful. The Court reasoned that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, provides specific penalties, such as fines, for acts of negligence. Since the employer had not imposed such a fine, the Tribunal could not arbitrarily withhold back benefits. Consequently, the Court declared the Tribunal's order regarding back benefits without lawful authority and ordered the payment of such benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer withhold back benefits from an employee whose dismissal has been declared unlawful?
  • Does a solitary instance of sleeping on duty constitute misconduct warranting dismissal under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is an Appellate Tribunal authorized to deny back benefits to a reinstated employee based on negligence when the employer failed to impose a statutory fine?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs The State.1983 P Cr, L J 1999 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar and 2 Others1983 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad and Others vs Ghulam Abbas Bhatti and Others1983 CLC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad and Others vs Allah Diwaya and Others1983 CLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-02Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Election Tribunal and Others1983 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Khan and Others vs Muhammad Yasin and Others1983 CLC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2564 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Jhang and Others1983 CLC 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 262 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, and Others1983 CLC 113 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →