Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- (M/s.) Johnson & Johnson Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. vs Collector of1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1519 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zubaida vs Muhammad Sadiq Butt And Other(K.L.R. 1998 SC 38) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a review petition seeking to recall an observation made by the Supreme Court in an order dated 17.3.1996, which had declined leave in a Civil Petition. The impugned observation, which suggested the petitioner could approach authorities for property transfer, was mistakenly lifted from an earlier Lahore High Court judgment (dated 20.6.1993) and attributed to a later High Court judgment (in Writ Petition No. 200-R of 1994) that was the subject of the petition for leave to appeal. This error led to a second round of litigation. The Supreme Court found an error apparent on the face of its earlier order and, exercising its suo motu revisional power inherent in Article 188 of the Constitution, allowed the review petition. The Court held that the question of limitation became insignificant due to the apparent error and the fact that the petitioner was not served notice at the stage of hearing the petition for leave to appeal. Consequently, the erroneous observation was directed to be deleted from the Court's previous order.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court exercise suo motu revisional power under Article 188 of the Constitution to correct an error apparent on the face of its own order?
- Does the question of limitation become insignificant in a review petition where there is an error apparent on the face of the Court's order and the petitioner was not served notice?
- Can an observation mistakenly lifted from an earlier judgment and attributed to a later one be a ground for review?
- Is a party entitled to review an order passed in their absence if they were not served notice?
- (Mst.) Zainab Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 257 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Taj Begum vs The Secretary, Government of the Punjab, LocalK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Serv ices Cases 110 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shameema Khatoon & Other vs Haji Murad Ali & Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 45) · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sardar Begum vs N/AK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases · Other · -Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sajida Perveen vs Ashiq Ali & OtherK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Noshin Akram vs Mian Abdur Rauf, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 215 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Manzoor Mai vs SHO., Shujaabad Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 190 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Haleem Khatoon vs Sultan Bib, Etc.(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 49) · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Farrukh Begum vs Shaukat Jeelani Khan And Other(K.L.R. 1998 Revenue Cases 10) · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-09Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Afshan Bibi vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 SC 69) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that granted bail to the petitioner, Mst. Afshan Bibi, in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, but imposed a specific condition requiring the bail bonds to be furnished by her father. The petitioner challenged this condition, arguing that the High Court lacked the competence to impose such a restrictive requirement, particularly given her apprehension of danger from her father and her desire to be lodged in a Dar-ul-Aman. The Supreme Court held that the High Court is not authorized to impose such restrictive conditions on bail bonds. The Court affirmed the principle that an accused person is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing surety of their own choice. Consequently, the Court modified the bail order, allowing the petitioner to furnish surety of her choice in the amount originally directed, thereby allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Is the High Court competent to impose a condition requiring a specific person to furnish bail bonds for an accused?
- Can an accused person be released on bail upon furnishing surety of their own choice?
- Does the court have the authority to restrict the choice of surety when granting bail?
- (Mst) Shaheena Iqbal vs Federation of PakistanK.LR. 1998 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Seetan And Other vs MirzaK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- (Mrs.) Inam-Ul-Haq vs The Director, Anti-Corruption Farid Kot House, Lahore, EtcK.L.R 1998 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Miss) Huma Naseeb, S.I vs I.G.P. Punjab, Lahore And D.I.G., Multan Range, MultanK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 136 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- (Dr.) Samina Younas vs Govt. of Punjab, And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Sen ice Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Muhammad Iqbal vs Muhammad Iqbal, Asst. Director HealthK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Iftikar Ahmad Minhas vs (Mst.) Aisha Mahmood And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 4 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Hafeezullah Chaudhary vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Health Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-10Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Abdul Rehman Chaudhary Chairman Punjab Text Book Board, Lahore vs Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 603 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Brig.) Retd. Imtiaz .Ahmad vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-19Read full judgment →
- (Admn.), Army Welfare Trust Cement Plant, Nizampur vs Col. (Retd.)1998 PLC 296 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-01-02Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar And Others vs Mst. Kausar And Other1997 MLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Union Council, Sial And Other1997 MLD 2914 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Recruitment1997 PLC (C.S.) 135 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-12Read full judgment →
- Zubair Shah vs The State1997 MLD 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
- Zilladar Haq Nawaz Shaheen Alias Shaheen vs Judge, Family Court, Faisalabad And Another1997 CLC 319 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Zilehussain Shah and anothers vs Asif Jan and 2 others1997 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Ziaur Rehman vs Qamaruddin1997 MLD 2735 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
- Ziaul Haq Malik vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division1997 PLC (C.S.) 441 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These cross-appeals arise from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal modifying a civil servant's penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The appellant, a Divisional Engineer in Pakistan Railways, was proceeded against under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, for gross negligence, carelessness, and misconduct relating to a failure to detect a shortage in stone ballast supplied by a contractor and for wrongly authorizing payment without conducting the mandatory 10% physical check, causing a pecuniary loss to the railway department. The core legal questions involved whether the inquiry report was based on sufficient evidence and whether the Service Tribunal was justified in substituting the penalty of dismissal or removal with compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant's gross negligence and unauthorized payment were duly supported by evidence, including admissions and material-at-site accounts, and that the appellant had failed to substantiate his defense. However, because the appellant passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and the Government failed to bring his legal representatives on record within the prescribed period, the Government's appeal abated, and the civil servant's appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an inquiry report relying on material-at-site accounts and admissions is sustainable, and statutory time limits for bringing legal representatives on record in service matters before the apex court must be strictly observed.
Questions settled- Whether an inquiry report is vitiated when it relies on material-at-site accounts and admissions made during a departmental probe without examining witnesses in the presence of the accused?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in substituting the penalty of removal from service with compulsory retirement where no unlawful personal gain is established?
- What is the consequence under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, of failing to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within ninety days?
- Ziaul Haq Malik And Others vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment1997 SCMR 576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from an impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the removal from service of a civil servant, a Divisional Engineer (Works) in Pakistan Railways, on charges of misconduct, negligence, and causing financial loss through unauthorized payments to a contractor without a mandatory 10% physical check. The core legal questions involved whether the inquiry report was based on evidence and whether the Service Tribunal was justified in converting the penalty of dismissal or removal from service into compulsory retirement. The Supreme Court held that the inquiry findings regarding gross negligence and unauthorized payment were duly supported by evidence and concurrent factual findings, and that the Service Tribunal's reduction of sentence was immaterial to the government's appeal because the government's appeal had abated due to the failure to bring the deceased respondent's legal representatives on record within the prescribed period. The key principle laid down is that findings of a service tribunal based on proper evaluation of departmental inquiry evidence will not be interfered with, and appeals abate if legal representatives are not substituted in time upon a party's death.
Questions settled- Whether an inquiry report in departmental proceedings is considered based on no evidence when the accused fails to examine available witnesses or contradict the record?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the discretion to alter a penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement when proportionality of punishment is considered?
- Whether an appeal before the Supreme Court abates if the appellant fails to bring the legal representatives of a deceased respondent on record within the prescribed limitation period?
- Zia Ur Rehman Khan And Others vs Additional Commissioner And Other1997 SCMR 1969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition against the restoration of land allotment to the respondents. The core legal question concerns the validity of cancelling a land allotment without notice to the original allottee or her heirs and the subsequent restoration of the same. The Supreme Court held that the initial cancellation of the allotment without notice to the affected parties was void, making the subsequent restoration of the land to the legal heirs unexceptionable. The Court laid down the principle that an allotment cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing or notice is legally infirm and must be restored to the rightful claimants, while noting that petitioners who withdrew a previous challenge to the restoration order are estopped from questioning its validity, though they may be accommodated with alternative land.
Questions settled- Whether an order cancelling a land allotment without notice to the allottee or her eligible heirs is legally sustainable?
- Can a party who withdrew a previous constitutional petition challenging a restoration order subsequently question its validity?
- Whether findings of fact regarding the eligibility of heirs determined by settlement authorities can be successfully challenged in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Zia Shahid vs Sh. Rafiq Ahmad And Other1997 CLC 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
- Zeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd. Through General Manager, Tando1997 PLC 363 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
- Zeal Pak Cement Factory Limited, Tando Muhammad Khan, Hyderabad1997 PLC 420 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Zarghunshah vs Surgeon-General And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- Zarghun Shah vs Surgeon-General and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 4 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Civil Labour Class-IV employee, challenged his discharge from service following a prolonged absence due to his involvement in a criminal case. After being charged with murder and attempted murder, the petitioner remained absent from duty for nearly three years. Although he was eventually acquitted due to a compromise, his employer discharged him from service. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal, holding that the unauthorized absence was proven on the face of the record, rendering a formal inquiry unnecessary. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, rejecting the argument that the discharge order was coram non judice for lack of a hearing. The Court held that where the fact of unauthorized absence is undisputed and patent, the principle of 'audi alteram partem' is not attracted, as an inquiry would serve no purpose. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between 'discharge' and punitive measures like 'dismissal' or 'removal,' noting that the discharge carried no stigma, thus justifying the summary termination of service.
Questions settled- Is a formal inquiry necessary for the discharge of an employee when the charge of unauthorized absence is proven on the face of the record?
- Does the principle of 'audi alteram partem' apply to an order of discharge from service where the employee has been absent without leave for a prolonged period?
- Is there a legal distinction between 'discharge' from service and 'dismissal' or 'removal' regarding the necessity of a hearing?
- Zarfroosh vs Sikandar Aziz and 5 others1997 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves multiple writ petitions challenging interim orders issued by the Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantt, which rejected applications contesting the Controller's jurisdiction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether interim orders, for which the right of appeal is expressly barred by Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, can be challenged through the High Court’s Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that such writ petitions are incompetent and unmaintainable. The ratio decidendi establishes that where a statute specifically excludes the right of appeal against interlocutory or interim orders, a party cannot bypass this legislative intent by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction to challenge those same orders. The Court emphasized that remedies not directly available under the special law cannot be sought indirectly through constitutional means, as this would defeat the manifest intention of the legislature to ensure summary and speedy disposal of rent cases. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners’ conduct demonstrated an attempt to delay proceedings through piecemeal litigation, which the Court strongly condemned.
Questions settled- Can interim orders of a Rent Controller be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction when the governing statute specifically bars appeals against such orders?
- Does the exclusion of a right of appeal in a special statute prevent a party from invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge interlocutory orders?
- Is it permissible to bypass the statutory appellate process by filing a constitutional petition against an interim order?
- Zareen Shah vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Machh and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1185 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed seeking the release of the petitioner from jail, claiming his imprisonment had expired after accounting for the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in two separate convictions for narcotics and customs offenses. The core legal questions involved whether sentences imposed in separate trials for a single transaction run concurrently by default under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if no direction is given, whether inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be exercised to make them concurrent, and whether the benefit of Section 382-B applies separately in both convictions. The Balochistan High Court held that under Section 397, sentences run consecutively unless expressly directed to run concurrently by the trial or appellate court, and declined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A to order concurrency given the gravity of transporting a large quantity of heroin. The Court further held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B separately in both convictions. The petition was ultimately dismissed as the petitioner's unexpired sentence period had not yet lapsed.
Questions settled- Do multiple sentences of imprisonment run concurrently by default if the trial or appellate court fails to give a specific direction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to direct separate sentences to run concurrently in narcotics cases?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 separately in multiple convictions arising from related proceedings?
- What constitutes legal custody when a prisoner is undergoing consecutive sentences imposed by different courts?
- Zardad Khan vs Muhammad Ayaz Khan1997 CLC 1825 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-09Read full judgment →
- Zakim Khan Mahsood vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2003 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-24Read full judgment →
- Zakaria Khan vs Muhammad Rafiq1997 SCMR 938 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The trial court initially dismissed the suit due to the plaintiff's failure to perform the necessary Talabs under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. On revision, the Peshawar High Court reversed the findings regarding Talabs, holding that the plaintiff had complied with the legal requirements, and remanded the case solely for the determination of the sale consideration and market value of the suit land. Upon remand, the trial court decreed the suit after the plaintiff admitted the sale price. The petitioner challenged the subsequent dismissal of his revision petition, arguing that the trial court failed to re-examine the issue of Talab after remand. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court’s remand order had attained finality regarding the issue of Talab. The Court affirmed that a trial court, upon remand, is restricted to the specific issues directed by the appellate court and cannot re-open matters already conclusively decided by the superior court.
Questions settled- Can a trial court re-examine issues that were conclusively decided by a High Court in a remand order?
- Is a trial court required to re-adjudicate all issues upon remand, or only those specified by the appellate court?
- Does a finding on the performance of Talabs by a High Court in a revision petition attain finality for the purposes of subsequent proceedings in the trial court?
- Zairullah vs The State1997 SCMR 396 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the double murder of a woman and her minor son, resulting in sentences of life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence including the recovery of dead bodies based on the appellant's disclosure, and the identification of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, specifically the discovery of the bodies buried in the appellant's fields pursuant to his disclosure while in custody, coupled with a validly recorded and voluntary judicial confession, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court laid down the principle that a retracted judicial confession, when corroborated by strong and reliable circumstantial evidence such as the recovery of dead bodies from the accused's exclusive property, forms a legally sound basis for conviction in cases resting on circumstantial evidence.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and a retracted judicial confession?
- Whether the recovery of dead bodies from the fields of the accused constitutes strong circumstantial evidence?
- Does a delay of four days in recording a judicial confession after initial arrest render the confession involuntary?
- Zaib Ullah vs Sultan Sikandar alias Wazir Khan and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1951 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Hussain vs Superintendent Telegraphs, Small Telegraph1997 PLC 492 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Hussain Shah, Security Guard, P.R.T.C., Intercity Depot, Multan1997 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Elahi And Another vs The State1997 SCMR 385 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a criminal appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants, Zahoor Elahi and Muhammad Younas, for murder and assault under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, respectively, while commuting the death sentence of the first appellant to imprisonment for life. Five other co-accused were acquitted by the trial court on the same evidence by giving them the benefit of the doubt, which acquittals attained finality. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the appellants could be sustained solely on the basis of interested and related ocular testimony when the identical evidence had been disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused without independent corroboration. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants, holding that once the prosecution evidence was disbelieved qua several co-accused and found to be tainted by partisan interests without corroboration of unimpeachable character, it could not safely be used to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused on the same set of facts.
Questions settled- Can the conviction of an accused be sustained on the same ocular testimony that was rejected for co-accused who were acquitted?
- Does an interested and related witness require independent corroboration of unimpeachable character to form the basis of a capital conviction?
- Whether the principle of safe administration of criminal justice warrants extending the benefit of doubt to convicted appellants when their case is at par with acquitted co-accused?
- Zahoor Ahmed vs The State1997 SCMR 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arose from a murder conviction under Sections 302 and 452, Pakistan Penal Code, where the petitioner had murdered his wife. His appeal and subsequent petition for leave to appeal were dismissed. The review was sought on the ground that the petitioner, as the father of the deceased's children (who were direct descendants), could not have been convicted under Section 302, PPC, in light of Sections 306 and 308, PPC. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that Sections 306 and 308, PPC, were not in force at the time the crime was committed in 1988, having been enacted in 1990. Therefore, the petitioner could not avail the benefit of these provisions retrospectively.
Questions settled- Can a convict benefit from criminal law provisions that were not in force at the time the crime was committed?
- Does the principle of non-retrospective application of criminal law apply to provisions related to qisas and diyat?
- Are Sections 306 and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code applicable to offenses committed before their enactment in 1990?
- Zahida Bano vs Government of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 662 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
- Zahid Mehmood vs Principal, Khyber Medical College And 3 Other1997 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the denial of admission to the first professional M.B.,B.S. course at Ayub Medical College. The petitioner, the son of an employee in the Project Directorate of the College, sought admission against a seat reserved for the children of the non-teaching staff. The College authorities rejected his application, contending his father was not part of the non-teaching staff. The core legal question was whether the staff of the Project Directorate qualified as non-teaching staff of the College for admission purposes. The Supreme Court observed that the definition of 'Project Director' granted powers equivalent to the Principal over employees, and minutes from a Board of Directors meeting explicitly stated that Project Directorate staff possessed the same rights as Ayub Medical College staff to compete for reserved seats. Finding prima facie merit in the petitioner's argument that the High Court overlooked these facts, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the eligibility criteria.
Questions settled- Does the staff of a Project Directorate attached to a medical college qualify as non-teaching staff for the purpose of reserved admission seats?
- Can minutes of a Board of Directors meeting be used to interpret the eligibility criteria for reserved admission seats?
- Does the definition of 'Project Director' as having powers of a Principal imply that the Project Directorate is an integral part of the college for administrative purposes?
- Zahid Hussain vs General Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Muzaffarabad And Another1997 PLC 278 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-28Read full judgment →
- Zahid Ghafoor vs Mrs. Rehana Rafique1997 MLD 2719 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
- Zahid Akhtar vs The State1997 MLD 1238 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed And Another vs Messrs Chief Silk Mills, Karachi1997 PLC 631 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-08-06Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmad And Another vs Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, LahoreAnd 5 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmad and another vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 43 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
- Zafarul Islam And 5 Others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner1, Hyderabad And 5 Other1997 MLD 565 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 258 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal Khan vs General Manager, Adam Sugar Mills, Chishtian1997 PLC 616 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
- Zafar Hussain And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1339 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Ali Shah vs Quetta Serena Hotel Through General Manager, Quetta1997 PLC 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager at a hotel, challenged his dismissal by filing a grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court and the High Court dismissed his petition, holding that he was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thus lacked standing. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address whether a person excluded from the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could still invoke the grievance procedure of Section 25-A if they qualified as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the amendment to Standing Order 12(3) of the 1968 Ordinance effectively expanded the scope of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Court established that individuals who are 'workmen' under the 1968 Ordinance are entitled to seek redress under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, even if they do not satisfy the definition of 'workman' under the latter statute.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 invoke the grievance procedure under Section 25-A of that Ordinance?
- Does the definition of 'workman' in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 differ from the definition in the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 expand the scope of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Yusuf Ali Shah vs Quetta Serena Hotel Through General Manager, Quetta1997 SCMR 1630 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager at a hotel, challenged his dismissal through a grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed his application, holding he was not a 'workman' as defined under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the High Court dismissed his constitutional petition in limine. The core legal question was whether an employee, even if not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, could invoke the grievance procedure under Section 25-A of that Ordinance if they qualified as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the amendment to Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, expanded the scope of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that the legislature intended to confer the right to file a grievance application upon persons aggrieved by dismissal, even if they do not strictly fall under the definition of 'worker' or 'workman' within the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provided they are covered by the definition in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, exclusively govern the right to file a grievance application under Section 25-A?
- Can a person who is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, still invoke the grievance procedure of Section 25-A if they qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- What is the legal effect of the amendment to Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, on the scope of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Yusuf A. Haroon And Another vs Mahmood A. Haroon And 5 Other1997 MLD 2246 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Ali vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and others1997 PLD Karachi 198 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
- Younus Warind And Another vs Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui1997 MLD 549 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
- Younis Mayo and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 925 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-28Read full judgment →
- Younas Ali Bukhari And Another vs United Bank Limited Through President And Another1997 PLC 147 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Yasmin Javaid vs Province of Punjab Through Additional Chief1997 PLC (C.S.) 1108 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-28Read full judgment →
- Yaseen And 16 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1327 · Northern Areas Chief Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
- Yar MUHAMMAD/Accused vs The State1997 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Yar Muhammad, who was charged under the Arms Ordinance for the recovery of pistols, magazines, and ammunition during a police raid on his residence. The core legal question was whether the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the search, as contemplated by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the recovery and entitled the accused to bail. The Court held that while Section 103 provides essential safeguards against arbitrary action, non-compliance does not ipso facto render a search illegal or devoid of authority. The Court emphasized that the testimony of police officials remains admissible, provided there is no evidence of mala fides. Given that the raid was conducted under the supervision of a Magistrate and the accused was named in the initial report, the Court found reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the offense. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure to associate local inhabitants during a search under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically render the search illegal?
- Is the testimony of police officials inadmissible in a criminal trial merely because they are law enforcement officers?
- What factors should a court consider when evaluating the validity of a search conducted without independent witnesses?
- Does the existence of a press report exonerating an accused create sufficient grounds for 'further inquiry' to justify the grant of bail?
- Yaqub Mirza, Chief Executive/Chairman, Shamma Floor Mills (Private)1997 PLD Lahore 447 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob Brothers vs 1To Circle-16, Lahore1997 P.C.T.L.R. 146 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
- Yadgar Flour Mills vs Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary Food1997 MLD 729 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
- Wilh. Wilhelmsen vs Commissioner of Income Tax1997 PTD 977 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Shah vs District Judge, Kohat And 4 Other1997 CLC 1796 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Kohat, ordering his eviction from a commercial shop on the ground of personal and bona fide need of the landlord. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the concurrent findings regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and whether a retired landlord's testimony regarding his intent to run a business with the help of his sons sufficiently establishes good faith. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that factual controversies and concurrent findings of fact cannot be reopened or gone into under constitutional writ jurisdiction, and that the sole testimony of a landlord, when unshaken in cross-examination, is sufficient to establish bona fide personal requirement under rent laws. The key principle laid down is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reappraise evidence in rent matters, and a landlord's established personal need for setting up a business—even with the assistance of family members—justifies eviction.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need recorded by the Rent Controller and the appellate court be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is the sole testimony of a landlord sufficient to establish a bona fide and personal requirement for a rented premises?
- Does the old age of a landlord render him legally incapable of establishing a good faith requirement to run a small business with the assistance of his sons?
- Wazir Ahmad And 13 Others vs Abdul Razaq And 4 Other1997 CLC 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
- Waterrfall Estates Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1997 PTD 570 · Supreme Court of India · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority, WAPDA House, Lahore and 21997 PLC (C.S.) 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which reduced the penalty imposed on a WAPDA employee. The respondent, a Test Inspector, was accused of conniving in electricity theft and tampering with an official meter. Although the respondent did not contest the allegations on merits before the Tribunal, the Tribunal reduced his penalty from the stoppage of five annual increments to two annual increments and directed that his suspension period be treated as duty. The appellant, WAPDA, contended that because the respondent admitted guilt, the Tribunal had no justification to mitigate the penalty. The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Tribunal possesses wide statutory powers to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify any impugned departmental order. The Court ruled that the quantum of punishment is to be determined based on the specific circumstances of each case, and the Tribunal was fully competent to take a lenient view in light of the respondent's clean breast of the matter.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to modify or reduce a penalty even if the delinquent employee does not contest the case on merits?
- What is the scope of the Service Tribunal's powers under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 regarding departmental penalties?
- Can a period of suspension be treated as extraordinary leave without pay as a form of penalty under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1978?
- Water and Power Development Authority, WAPDA House, Lahore And 21997 PLC (C. S.) 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against a WAPDA employee under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, on allegations of corruption, electricity theft, and tampering with official property. The competent authority imposed a major penalty, which was subsequently modified by the departmental appellate authority. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal further reduced the penalty and directed that the suspension period be treated as duty with consequential benefits, although the employee did not contest the case on merits. WAPDA challenged this decision before the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, contending that the Tribunal erred in mitigating the sentence without addressing the gravity of the proven misconduct. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Service Tribunal possesses wide powers under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to confirm, set aside, vary, or modify an impugned departmental order, and that the determination of the quantum of sentence lies within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Tribunal based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to vary or modify the quantum of sentence awarded by a departmental authority in disciplinary matters?
- Can the Service Tribunal mitigate a penalty even when a delinquent civil servant chooses not to contest the case on merits?
- What are the statutory powers of a Service Tribunal under section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 when deciding an appeal?
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore And Another vs Khushi Muhammad1997 PLC (C.S.) 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent employee's appeal was allowed, directing that his case be considered for promotion to B-17 on the basis of the diploma he holds. The core legal question was whether a WAPDA Sub-Engineer holding a diploma in Drafting and Designing is eligible for promotion to B-17 under the relevant service rules, or whether eligibility is restricted to specific technologies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable service rules simply require a diploma or a certificate of overseer from a recognized institute without making distinctions between specific technologies. The Court laid down the principle that eligibility under the rules must be determined strictly according to the plain language of the provisions, and that an objection regarding the specific technology of a diploma cannot be raised when the rule does not prescribe such a restriction.
Questions settled- Whether a Sub-Engineer holding a diploma in Drafting and Designing is eligible for promotion to B-17 under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules 1968?
- Does Rule 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules 1968 make any distinction between diplomas of different technologies for the purpose of promotion?
- Is eligibility for promotion distinct from fitness determined by a Selection Board or Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and another ' vs Khushi Muhammad1997 PLC (C.S.) 895 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent employee's appeal was allowed, directing that his case be considered for promotion to B-17 on the basis of the diploma he holds. The core legal question was whether a WAPDA Sub-Engineer holding a diploma in Drafting and Designing was eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer (B-17) under the relevant service rules, or whether eligibility was restricted to specific technologies. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable service rules simply require a diploma or certificate of Overseer from a recognized institute and do not make any distinction between diplomas of different technologies. The Court laid down the principle that plain statutory rules governing promotion criteria cannot be read to introduce restrictive requirements not explicitly stated in the text, and that a distinction must be drawn between eligibility and fitness for promotion.
Questions settled- Whether a Sub-Engineer holding a diploma in Drafting and Designing is eligible for promotion to B-17 under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules 1968?
- Does Rule 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules 1968 require a diploma in a specific technology for promotion to Assistant Engineer?
- What is the distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion as determined by a Selection Board or Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Water and Power Development Authority Through Sub Divisional1997 MLD 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
- Wasif Zameer Ahmed vs Chairman, Selection Committee (the Principal1997 MLD 813 · Lahore High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- Waseem alias Asgher vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Waseem Ahmad Khan vs WAPDAthrough Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 31997 PLC 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which declared the order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) setting aside his termination from service to be without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the N.I.R.C. had jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition concerning the termination of service of a WAPDA employee and to set aside a termination order, or whether exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of section 17(1-B) and section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, service under WAPDA is declared to be the service of Pakistan and persons holding posts thereunder are deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C., Labour Courts, and other tribunals in matters relating to terms and conditions of service. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to set aside an order of termination of service passed against an employee of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority?
- Are employees holding posts under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Does the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal oust the jurisdiction of other courts and tribunals in matters concerning the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees?
- What is the legal effect of section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, on orders passed by any court, tribunal, or commission regarding the removal or termination of WAPDA employees?
- Waseem Ahmad Khan vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore And 31997 PLC 762 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that declared an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to be without lawful authority. The petitioner, a WAPDA employee, had challenged his termination before the NIRC, alleging unfair labour practice. The core legal question was whether the NIRC possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination of a WAPDA employee, or if such matters fall exclusively under the purview of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NIRC lacked jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that under Section 17(1-B) and 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, WAPDA employees holding a post are deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the jurisdiction of all other courts, tribunals, or commissions to challenge termination orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act is ousted, vesting exclusive authority in the Federal Service Tribunal. The judgment reinforces the constitutional and statutory bar against alternative forums for service-related grievances of WAPDA employees.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate the termination of a WAPDA employee?
- Are WAPDA employees holding a post deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Does Section 17(1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, oust the jurisdiction of all other courts and tribunals regarding termination orders passed under Section 17(1-A)?
- Waseem Ahmad Khan vs WAPDA And 3 Other1997 SCMR 2000 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a WAPDA employee, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that had set aside an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The NIRC had reinstated the petitioner, whose services were terminated, on grounds of unfair labour practice. The core legal question was whether the NIRC had jurisdiction in matters concerning the termination of service of WAPDA employees, or if such jurisdiction exclusively lay with the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that service under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) is declared to be service of Pakistan, and any person holding a post under WAPDA is deemed a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Federal Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over grievances pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of WAPDA employees, even if they are considered workmen. The Court affirmed that the jurisdiction of the NIRC and other tribunals is barred by Section 17(1-B) and (1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) have jurisdiction over matters concerning the termination of service of Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) employees?
- Are employees of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over grievances related to the terms and conditions of service for Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) employees?
- What is the effect of Section 17(1-B) and (1-C) of the WAPDA Act 1958 on the jurisdiction of other courts and tribunals regarding WAPDA employees' service matters?
- Waris Khan And 2 Others vs Mst. Zainab Nisa And Other1997 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the concurrent judgments of the lower courts and the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision and decreed a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents' predecessor for possession of land. The core legal questions involve whether concurrent factual findings regarding the due performance of Talab-e-Muwathibat and Talab-e-Ishad can be disturbed on reappraisal of evidence, and whether the courts below erred in determining the market value of the suit land and rejecting the alleged sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court and lower courts committed no misreading or perverse appreciation of evidence regarding the fulfillment of pre-emption demands or the rejection of unreliable testimony concerning the sale price. The Court affirmed the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on consistent evidence will not be disturbed in a leave to appeal petition merely because a fresh reappraisal could potentially yield a different conclusion.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court can disturb concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts on the reappraisal of evidence without showing misreading or perverse appreciation?
- Does a minor contradiction in witness statements regarding peripheral matters invalidate the proof of Talab-e-Muwathibat?
- What is the evidentiary effect of failing to produce material witnesses and the revenue officer who attested the mutation regarding the actual sale consideration?
- Whether concurrent findings fixing the market value of suit land in a pre-emption suit warrant interference in a leave to appeal petition?
- Waqar-Ul-Islam and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1107 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for the alleged commission of sodomy. The core legal question concerned whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of conflicting medical evidence and a compromised chain of custody for forensic samples. The Federal Shariat Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court found that the medical evidence was unreliable, noting the absence of expected physical injuries on the victim and the failure of the medical officer to document necessary findings or obtain semen samples for serological matching. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the prosecution’s handling of forensic parcels was dubious, with significant delays and irregularities in delivery to the Chemical Examiner. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms that failure to follow established forensic protocols and maintain a secure chain of custody creates reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the prosecution to match the semen of the accused with semen found on the victim's swabs create reasonable doubt in a sodomy case?
- What is the legal consequence of a dubious chain of custody regarding forensic parcels in criminal trials?
- Is a conviction sustainable when medical evidence is contradictory and fails to support the prosecution's version of events?
- Does the failure of a medical officer to document standard forensic findings in a medico-legal report undermine the prosecution's case?
- WAPDA, Lahore And 2 Others vs Karamat Ali Bajwa1997 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal assailing the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the respondent WAPDA employee's dismissal from service for unauthorized absence was modified to a lesser penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time-scale. The core legal question is whether Rule 5-A of the Wapda Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978 was applicable to mitigate the penalty of dismissal for prolonged unauthorized absence amounting to misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the inapplicability of Rule 5-A and the severity of the misconduct require detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal, laying down that questions concerning the proper application of disciplinary rules and proportionality of punishment in cases of extended unauthorized absence warrant formal examination by the appellate court.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 5-A of the Wapda Employees (Efficiency & Disciplinary) Rules, 1978 applies to cases of prolonged unauthorized absence from duty?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute the penalty of dismissal from service with a lesser punishment on the ground of proportionality?
- Does extended absence without leave constitute misconduct warranting dismissal under the applicable service rules?
- WAPDA, Lahore And 2 Other vs Karamat Ali Bajwa1997 PLC (C.S.) 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, a WAPDA employee, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence from duty. After exhausting departmental remedies, he appealed to the Federal Service Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the respondent conceded the merits of the charge but argued that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate, relying on Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978. The Tribunal accepted this argument, finding the dismissal harsh, and substituted it with a lesser penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the pay scale for three years. WAPDA petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, contending that the respondent's prolonged absence constituted misconduct warranting dismissal and that Rule 5-A was inapplicable to the circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contention regarding the applicability of Rule 5-A and the appropriateness of the penalty required further judicial consideration. The Court thus set the stage to determine whether the Tribunal erred in applying Rule 5-A to mitigate the penalty for misconduct involving prolonged unauthorized absence.
Questions settled- Does Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules 1978 apply to cases of prolonged unauthorized absence from duty?
- Can a Service Tribunal substitute a penalty of dismissal with a lesser punishment based on the principle of proportionality?
- Does prolonged absence from duty without leave constitute misconduct warranting dismissal under WAPDA service rules?
- WAPDA vs Muhammad Ashraf Naeem1997 PLC 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenged the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to its employees. The core legal question was whether WAPDA employees, despite being declared in the service of Pakistan under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, are excluded from the protection of the Standing Orders Ordinance due to the existence of internal service rules. The Supreme Court held that the Standing Orders Ordinance applies to WAPDA employees. The Court reasoned that WAPDA is a statutory corporation, not a government department, and its internal rules lack statutory character. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while WAPDA employees are deemed to be in the service of Pakistan, they are not necessarily 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, particularly when they qualify as 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Consequently, the respondent, as a workman, was entitled to the protections afforded by the Standing Orders Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of the Water and Power Development Authority?
- Are the service rules framed by the Water and Power Development Authority statutory in character?
- Does the declaration of service under the Water and Power Development Authority as 'service of Pakistan' automatically classify all employees as 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Can an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority be classified as a 'workman' for the purposes of the Standing Orders Ordinance?
- WAPDA vs Muhammad Ashraf Naeem , . (1997 PLC 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by WAPDA examined whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to WAPDA employees, notwithstanding section 17 of the WAPDA Act, 1958 and the proviso to section 1(4)(c) of the Ordinance. The respondent, a meter reader whose services were terminated during probation, sought reinstatement through labour forums and subsequently the Federal Service Tribunal, which held in his favour. The Supreme Court considered whether WAPDA is an establishment carried on under the authority of the Federal Government with statutory rules of service, and whether the respondent qualified as a civil servant or a workman. The Court held that WAPDA rules are not statutory in character and that WAPDA is not an extension of executive authority, rendering the exclusion proviso inapplicable. Furthermore, although service under WAPDA is deemed service of Pakistan, employees who fall within the definition of a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are excluded from the definition of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Standing Orders Ordinance applies to WAPDA workmen.
Questions settled- Whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 applies to the employees of WAPDA?
- Are the service rules framed by WAPDA statutory in character for the purposes of the proviso to Standing Order 1(4)(c)?
- Does a WAPDA employee who qualifies as a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 fall within the definition of a civil servant?
- Is a WAPDA workman entitled to the protections and procedures provided under the Standing Orders Ordinance upon termination of service?
- WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore and another vs Liaquat1997 PLC (C.S.) 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had remanded the cases of employees removed from service for alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Authority is restricted to proceeding against employees under the WAPDA Efficiency and Discipline Rules for misconduct, or whether it retains the power to take action under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, notwithstanding allegations of inefficiency or indiscipline. The Supreme Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in connected petitions to examine the scope and true import of Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, granted leave in the present petitions as well. The Court suspended the operation of the impugned Tribunal order, except for one respondent who had already been reinstated. The principle established is that the scope of the Authority's power to remove employees under Section 17(1-A) versus disciplinary proceedings requires judicial determination by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Can the Water and Power Development Authority proceed against an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 when allegations of misconduct, inefficiency, or indiscipline exist?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to remand a case to the Authority where the Authority has removed an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958?
- Is the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal in reviewing WAPDA removal orders restricted only to cases involving mala fide or legal infirmity?
- WAPDA And Another vs Allah Ditta1997 SCMR 1120 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by WAPDA against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's appeal regarding the grant of higher pay scales. The respondent, initially appointed as a Divisional Accountant (Emergency Cadre) in WAPDA, was promoted to the regular scale of Divisional Accountant with effect from 15-3-1975 with a relaxation of WAPDA Accounts Service Rules. The Service Tribunal held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of B-13 from 29-10-1980 and a Selection Grade in B-15 from 18-2-1984, treating the relaxation of rules as exempting him from passing the prescribed departmental examination. The core legal question is whether an employee whose initial qualification requirement was relaxed for regularisation is automatically entitled to subsequent promotional pay scales and grades that are expressly subject to clearing a departmental examination. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider this question and suspended the operation of the impugned judgment pending the final decision.
Questions settled- Whether an employee granted regularisation through relaxation of rules is entitled to higher pay scales and selection grades subject to passing a departmental examination which he has not cleared?
- Does the relaxation of rules for initial regularisation exempt an employee from fulfilling subsequent prerequisites for advancement such as length of service and departmental examinations?
- WAPDA and 3 others vs Muhammad Nawaz and another1997 PLC (C.S.) 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the service appeals of the respondents and set aside their removal from service. The respondents were initially proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules for allegedly manhandling their S.D.O., but were subsequently issued show-cause notices under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 and summarily removed from service. The Federal Service Tribunal found the removal action to be tainted with mala fides, noted that the criminal court had acquitted the respondents, and held that the charges were not substantiated by reliable material. The Supreme Court examined the contentions raised by WAPDA regarding the validity of the inquiry report and the consistency of the Tribunal's findings while remanding the matter, and subsequently granted leave to appeal to consider the questions raised, continuing the interim stay order.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in interfering with an order of removal passed under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act when specific allegations are inquired into?
- Does the dropping of proceedings under Efficiency and Discipline Rules in favour of action under section 17(1-A) cast aspersions on the bona fides of the Authority?
- Can the Service Tribunal rely upon a criminal court acquittal to set aside departmental removal proceedings?
- Whether an inquiry report conducted without supplying copies of statements and report to the employees can be discarded by the Tribunal?
- WAPDA And 3 Other vs Muhammad Nawaz And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 1180 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which accepted the service appeals of respondents who had been removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act following allegations of assaulting their S.D.O. The core legal questions relate to the scope of powers under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act when specific misconduct is alleged, and the legality of substituting regular Efficiency and Discipline proceedings with summary removal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the Tribunal's treatment of the preliminary inquiry report and the alleged self-contradiction in its remand order require detailed examination. The Court thus granted leave to appeal and continued the interim stay order pending the final hearing.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can examine the sufficiency of material when an employee is removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act based on specific allegations?
- Does the initiation of proceedings under Section 17(1-A) after abandoning Efficiency and Efficiency Rules render the removal mala fide?
- Whether the Service Tribunal's judgment is self-contradictory if it criticizes the use of Section 17(1-A) while simultaneously granting liberty to proceed under the same provision upon remand?