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.
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Imdad1995 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Imda1995 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Haji Kamal Hussain and 27 others1995 CLC 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two election appeals arising from a common decision of the Election Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., which had declared the election of the returned candidate, Zulfiqar Ali, void on the ground that he was under the age of 25 years at the time of the election. The core legal question concerned the determination of the candidate's true age and the comparative evidentiary weight and admissibility of competing documents, namely school records versus a National Identity Card. The Peshawar High Court held that while school admission registers and certificates are public documents admissible in evidence under Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without requiring the author's testimony, they carry low probative value and are susceptible to under-reporting of age by parents to secure future advantages. Conversely, the National Identity Card, issued under statutory authority carrying penal consequences for false statements and lacking any apparent motive for misrepresentation at the time of its issuance, constitutes superior and more reliable evidence of age. The court laid down the principle that entries in school records regarding date of birth are inconclusive and can be successfully rebutted by the higher probative value of a National Identity Card, thereby restoring the returned candidate's election.
Questions settled- Whether school admission registers and certificates qualify as admissible public documents under Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without producing their author?
- Does the non-production of the headmaster who originally recorded the date of birth in school registers attract an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- What is the comparative probative value between a date of birth recorded in school registers and that stated in a National Identity Card issued under the National Registration Act 1973?
- Can entries regarding age in school records be successfully rebutted by a National Identity Card when no motive for misrepresentation existed at the time of obtaining the identity card?
- Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali Awan vs The Chairman, P.O.F., Wah Can'tt and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 605 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali and others vs Mst. Sajida Begum1995 SCMR 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court upholding the decision of the District Judge, which decreed the respondent's suit for pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a suit could be dismissed solely on the ground of an insufficiently stamped plaint where the deficient court-fee was subsequently made up during the trial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court was bound to determine the exact amount of court-fee and afford reasonable time to the plaintiff to make up any deficiency, and since the deficient court-fee was indeed paid during the trial, no illegality was committed by the lower appellate court. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, reinforcing the principle that procedural deficiencies regarding court-fees remedied during trial do not warrant the dismissal of a suit.
Questions settled- Whether a suit can be dismissed on the ground of an insufficiently stamped plaint if the deficiency is made up during the trial?
- Is the trial court bound to determine the exact amount of court-fee and afford reasonable time to the plaintiff to make up any deficiency?
- Zulfiqar Ali And Other vs Government of Punjab And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali alias Jaffa vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Zulekha Bibi vs Abdul SamadK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 401 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
- Zuhra Khatoon vs S.H.O. Police Station PEOPLE's Colony, Gujranwala1995 MLD 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
- Zubair Ahmed vs Syed Hasan Mehdi1995 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ziaurrehman Alvi vs Allahabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited1995 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, a member of a cooperative housing society, filed a suit against the society, the Karachi Development Authority, and another member, alleging plot size reduction, encroachment, and mismanagement. The defendants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint for failure to serve mandatory statutory notices and for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the suit was not maintainable due to the absence of valid notices under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957. The court emphasized that such notices are mandatory and must explicitly state the cause of action, plaintiff's details, and specific reliefs claimed; the plaintiff’s prior correspondence failed to meet these requirements. Furthermore, the court ruled that the dispute, which concerned matters touching the business of the society, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 54 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, thereby attracting the bar under Section 70-A and ousting the civil court's jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is a notice under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, mandatory for instituting a suit against a cooperative society?
- Does a notice that fails to specify the reliefs claimed satisfy the requirements of Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a member and a cooperative society regarding matters touching the business of the society?
- Is a suit against the Karachi Development Authority maintainable without the mandatory one-month notice required under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957?
- Ziauddin Shaikh and others vs Muhammad Rafique and others1995 SCMR 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh remanding a rent case to the Rent Controller to determine whether the demised premises constituted a hotel under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The petitioners had initially obtained an ejectment order on the ground of default. In appeal before the High Court, the respondents raised a jurisdictional question claiming the premises was a hotel. The High Court had earlier directed the Rent Controller under Section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 to record additional evidence on this point and submit a report. After the Rent Controller recorded the evidence of five witnesses and submitted the report, the High Court inadvertently overlooked the evidence on record and issued another order remanding the case to the Rent Controller for the exact same inquiry. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that under Section 21(3) of the Ordinance, once the High Court selects the option to remit an inquiry to the Rent Controller and receives the evidence report, it cannot remand the case again for the same purpose. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal taking into account the recorded additional evidence.
Questions settled- Can the High Court remand a case to the Rent Controller for an inquiry after having already received the additional evidence recorded pursuant to a previous order under Section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Whether premises used as a hotel fall outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- What options are available to the High Court under Section 21(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 when further inquiry is required in an appellate proceeding?
- Zia Muhammad Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Zia Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
- Zeeshan Kazmi vs The State1997 MLD 273 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
- Zeenat Taxtile Mills Ltd. vs Joint Official LiquidatorsK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Zarin Khan vs Haji Amir Sultan1995 CLC 1072 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
- Zareef Khan vs Sessions Judge, Peshawar and others1995 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which had directed the transfer of the petitioner to the Political Authorities of the Khyber Agency following his arrest under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate, acting under Section 86-A, correctly refused to transfer the petitioner to the tribal area on the grounds that the underlying dispute was civil in nature rather than a criminal offence. The Peshawar High Court held that the primary object of Section 86-A is to protect the liberty of citizens in settled areas from false involvement in tribal territory matters. The Court determined that the Magistrate is empowered to conduct an inquiry to satisfy himself that there is a strong or probable presumption of an offence before ordering removal. Finding that the original complaint was merely a civil claim for the recovery of money and an attempt to use state machinery to pressure the respondents, the Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and restored the Magistrate's decision to release the petitioner.
Questions settled- What is the scope of the inquiry a Magistrate must conduct under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before ordering the removal of an arrested person to a tribal area?
- Does a dispute regarding the recovery of money constitute an 'offence' sufficient to justify removal in custody under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Magistrate in a settled area refuse to transfer an accused to tribal authorities if the underlying complaint is essentially civil in nature?
- Zarat International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Banking Tribunal No.1, Karachi And 31995 MLD 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
- Zarat International (Pvt) Ltd vs Banking Tribunal No,1, Karachi and 31995 MLD 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
- Zarak Khan vs The Sessions Judge, Quetta and 5 others1995 MLD 1831 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
- Zarak Khan vs The Session Judge Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 623 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
- Zaliman Shah vs Atlas Rubber and Plastic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi through Director_Administration1995 PLC 626 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
- Zakiya Khatoon vs Roomi Enterprises1995 SCMR 753 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined to grant interim relief regarding alterations to a property currently subject to pre-emption litigation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in refusing to restrain the respondent from making alterations to the disputed property, or whether the respondent's undertaking to proceed at their own cost and risk provided adequate protection to the petitioner's interests. The Supreme Court held that the respondent's undertaking to carry out any improvements or alterations at their own cost and risk constituted sufficient protection for the petitioner's rights in the property. Consequently, the Court found no legal basis to interfere with the High Court's order and concluded that no further examination was required. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the principle that a formal undertaking by a party to assume financial risk for property alterations during pending litigation can serve as a sufficient safeguard against potential prejudice to the opposing party's interests.
Questions settled- Does a respondent's undertaking to perform property alterations at their own cost and risk provide sufficient protection in a pre-emption suit?
- Is an appellate court required to interfere with an interim order when the respondent has provided an undertaking to mitigate potential prejudice?
- Zakir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
- Zakir Mahmood Abbasi vs M.G.O., Mgo Branch, GHQ, Rawalpindi and 51995 SCMR 1028 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his seniority and promotion. The petitioner, a Supervisor (B) in BPS-8, sought to challenge the promotion of his juniors and claimed seniority over them. The respondents contended that promotion decisions are the exclusive domain of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and that the petitioner was not recommended due to adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports. The Tribunal, while dismissing the appeal, examined the petitioner's fitness for promotion on its merits. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address a critical legal question regarding the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court seeks to determine whether, notwithstanding the statutory bar contained in the proviso to section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, a Service Tribunal possesses the authority to adjudicate upon the fitness or suitability of a civil servant for appointment or promotion to a higher post.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, preclude a Service Tribunal from determining the fitness or suitability of a civil servant for promotion?
- Can a Service Tribunal adjudicate upon the merits of a promotion decision made by a Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Zakir Mahmood Abbasi vs M.G.O. Mgo Branch, GHQ, Rawalpindi and 51995 PLC (C.S.) 867 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his seniority and promotion. The petitioner, a Supervisor (B) in BPS-8, challenged the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 6 to Supervisor (A) in BPS-11, claiming seniority over them. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal after examining the petitioner's fitness for promotion, noting he had received average Annual Confidential Reports and was not recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion, notwithstanding the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically address this jurisdictional issue. The principle at stake is the extent of the Tribunal's authority to adjudicate on matters of promotion and fitness, particularly in light of the explicit legislative restrictions placed on the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction regarding the suitability of a person for appointment or promotion.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
- Does the bar contained in the proviso to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, preclude the Tribunal from adjudicating on the fitness of a person for promotion?
- Zakir Khan and others vs The State1995 SCMR 1793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Criminal appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which maintained the conviction and life imprisonment sentences of the appellants under Section 365-A read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for kidnapping for ransom. The appellants contended that the prosecution witnesses were interested and inconsistent, the mandatory search provisions under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were violated, disclosures leading to arrests were inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, and no test identification parade was conducted. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that minor omissions in witness statements do not impair credibility where core facts are corroborated. It ruled that Section 103 Cr.P.C. is a procedural rule whose strict compliance may be dispensed with under urgent or midnight circumstances, Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order acts as an exception allowing disclosures leading to the discovery of incriminating facts, and an identification parade is unnecessary when an abductee remains in prolonged captivity with the accused.
Questions settled- Does the non-compliance with the locality requirements of Section 103 Cr.P.C. render a search and recovery invalid when strict adherence was not practically possible?
- Is information provided by an accused person in police custody that leads to the discovery of connected incriminating facts admissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
- Is a formal test identification parade legally mandatory when an abductee remained in prolonged captivity with the accused and had ample opportunity to identify them?
- Does a mere omission by a witness during police investigation render their subsequent ocular testimony before the court unreliable?
- Zakir Hussain vs The State1995 SCMR 1170 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentence of death for the murder of Mst. Parveen. The prosecution case rested on an eyewitness account by related witnesses, including the deceased's daughter, supported by motive and medical evidence. The core legal question was whether the testimony of related witnesses, some belonging to another village, was sufficient to sustain a capital conviction. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness testimony was consistent, natural, and corroborated by medical evidence and motive, leaving no room for false substitution. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal on the merits of the conviction. However, noting a presidential amnesty notification, the Court commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life and granted the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that the testimony of related witnesses, when natural and consistent, is fully reliable to sustain a conviction, and subsequent presidential amnesties can commute death sentences in appropriate cases.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related witnesses can be relied upon to sustain a capital conviction without independent corroboration?
- Does the presence of related witnesses at the scene of a crime in a village appear unnatural merely because they belong to another village?
- Whether a presidential amnesty notification can convert a death sentence into imprisonment for life?
- Is the benefit of section 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable for computing the period of imprisonment upon commutation?
- Zakauddin vs Registrar of Trade Marks And Another1995 MLD 638 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
- Zair Wali and others vs Mst. Rangina and others1995 MLD 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Zair Wali And Others vs Mst. Rangina And Other1995 MLD 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Zaigham Hussain Asghar vs Prime Minister of Pakistan through Secretary,Establishment Division, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 666 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed against an impugned notification imposing penalties of stoppage of one increment and recovery of an amount upon the appellant, who served as an Assistant Director (Civil). The core legal questions involved whether a civil servant could be held solely liable for collective administrative irregularities, and whether initiating a second departmental inquiry and imposing punishment on the same charges after an initial acquittal violated the principle against double jeopardy. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the appellant could not be singled out for collective negligence involving other officials such as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the Director-General, and that issuing a second charge-sheet and punishing the appellant after his exoneration by the first inquiry officer was illegal and unjustified. The Tribunal laid down the principle that a civil servant cannot be vexed twice or penalized multiple times for the same charge, reinforcing constitutional protections against double jeopardy and holding that loss recovery must be pursued against the defaulting contractor rather than an innocent subordinate.
Questions settled- Whether a civil servant can be subjected to a second departmental inquiry and punished on the same charges after being exonerated in the first inquiry?
- Can a subordinate employee be held solely responsible for financial irregularities amounting to collective negligence involving senior management and drawing officers?
- Whether recovery for a contractor's default can be legally imposed upon a government employee when the department has pending running bills and ongoing judicial proceedings against the contractor?
- Zahoorul Islam and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- Zahooran Bibi vs SHO Police Station City VehariK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 553 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-20Read full judgment →
- Zahoor-Ul-Hasan vs Faqir Sain And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 87 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Zahoor-Ul-Hasan vs Faqir Sain and 6 others1995 CLC 487 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Elahi vs Mst. Irshad Begum and another1995 CLC 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Akhtar Raja vs Mst. Rubia Jilani and another1995 SCMR 1062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arose from custody proceedings pending before a Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The core legal question concerned the expeditious resolution of the custody dispute and the continuation of interim arrangements regarding the minors. Upon the consent of the parties, the Supreme Court directed the Family Court to conclude the pending proceedings within one month from the scheduled hearing date of 14-12-1994, specifically noting the parties' agreement to limit evidence to the testimony of the petitioner, her mother, and the father of the minors. The Court further ordered that the interim arrangement established by its previous order dated 21-9-1994 remain in effect until the final disposal of the matter by the Family Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not pressed, with the Court emphasizing the necessity of timely adjudication in family matters to ensure the welfare of the minors involved.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court direct a Family Court to conclude custody proceedings within a specified timeframe based on the consent of the parties?
- Does an interim arrangement regarding the custody of minors continue until the final disposal of the main petition by the Family Court?
- Zahoor Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the conviction of the appellant under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant purchased shoes using a fake one-thousand-rupee currency note. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the counterfeit currency note and its case beyond a shadow of doubt, particularly when the disputed currency note bore a conspicuous stamp showing it was previously impounded in another police case and material contradictions existed in the testimony and investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery and the charge due to glaring contradictions, lack of proper sealing procedures, and the fact that the note was already part of another case property. The court laid down the principle that where recovery of case property is doubtful and contradictory, and no evidence explains how an impounded article from a separate case came to be recovered anew, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, resulting in acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant's conviction under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be sustained when the alleged counterfeit currency note was already impounded in another police case?
- Does a failure by the prosecution to prove the recovery of an incriminating article beyond a shadow of doubt entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Can reliance be placed on eye-witness and police testimonies that contain material contradictions regarding the arrest and recovery of the accused?
- Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad Khan vs Mukhtar Ahmad1995 MLD 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-30Read full judgment →
- Zahid Paris and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 5 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the refusal of bail by the Shariat Court to the appellants, who were accused of robbery and extortion. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the case—specifically the lack of identification of the masked perpetrators and the questionable nature of the recoveries—there existed reasonable grounds to connect the appellants to the offence, thereby justifying the denial of bail. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the appellants were entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that at the bail stage, while a deep appreciation of evidence is impermissible, a tentative assessment is required. Since the occurrence took place at night with masked assailants and the recoveries lacked identification marks or verification by the victims, the prosecution's case against the appellants was not prima facie established. The Court laid down the principle that the heinousness or gravity of an offence alone is insufficient to refuse bail if reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the crime are missing, and that such cases fall under the category requiring further inquiry under the law.
Questions settled- Is the heinous nature of an offence, by itself, a sufficient ground to refuse bail?
- Does the lack of identification of masked assailants in a robbery case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deep appreciation of evidence permissible at the stage of deciding a bail application?
- Zahid Hussain Shah vs The State1995 PLD Supreme Court 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Lahore High Court declining post-arrest bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) in a case registered under Sections 324/34 and 337-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions were whether release on bail due to statutory delay in trial under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. is mandatory or discretionary, and whether delay caused by procedural steps or the severity of the alleged injury can defeat such entitlement. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail. The Court laid down that grant of bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. is a mandatory statutory right governed by the word 'shall', rather than a discretionary concession. Bail under this provision can only be refused if trial delay is attributable to an act or omission of the accused or someone acting on his behalf, or if the accused falls within the specific exceptions set out in the 4th proviso.
Questions settled- Is the grant of statutory bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. a mandatory statutory right or a matter of judicial discretion?
- Can statutory bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. be refused on the ground of the nature or severity of the injury?
- Does trial delay caused by summoning a co-accused count as delay attributable to the accused under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.?
- Zahid Hussain Shah and others vs Ghulam Murtaza Asghar and others1995 SCMR 1713 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal case originally initiated before a Special Court for Speedy Trial, which was subsequently abolished by the Special Courts for Speedy Trials (Repeal) Ordinance, 1994. Following the repeal, the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions, Islamabad. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Court was required to proceed with the trial de novo or could rely upon evidence already recorded by the defunct Special Court. The Sessions Court initially opted for a fresh trial, but the High Court, in revision, set aside that order and directed the trial to conclude based on the existing material. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioners' leave to appeal, noting that the petitioners' counsel had previously conceded before the High Court that there was no legal bar to the Sessions Court acting upon the evidence already recorded and that his clients desired an early conclusion to the trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, affirming the procedural path taken for the trial's conclusion.
Questions settled- Can a Sessions Court, upon receiving a case transferred from a defunct Special Court, rely on evidence already recorded by that Special Court?
- Does the High Court have the authority to direct a trial court to proceed on the basis of existing evidence rather than conducting a de novo trial?
- Zahid Bux vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-02Read full judgment →
- Zahid Akhtar vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local1995 PLD Supreme Court 530 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a government servant, challenged his frequent transfer orders in a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, citing the bar under Article 212 regarding service matters. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the transfers were malicious, passed by an incompetent authority, and violated the Punjab Civil Servants Act, thus bypassing the Article 212 bar. The Supreme Court, while observing that the frequent transfers were irregular, politically motivated, and contrary to the established transfer policy and the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974, ultimately dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The Court held that despite the illegality of the transfers, the constitutional bar under Article 212 remains applicable to service matters. The Court emphasized that bureaucrats have a duty to provide correct legal guidance to elected representatives and must not comply with illegal orders, as good governance requires an upright and strong bureaucracy that adheres strictly to the prescribed Rules of Business and established transfer policies.
Questions settled- Does the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution apply to the transfer orders of a government servant?
- Are transfer orders of a government servant valid if they are issued by a Minister instead of the competent authority designated in the Rules of Business?
- Can a government servant justify the compliance of an illegal order on the ground that it was issued by a superior authority?
- What are the legal requirements for the transfer of a government servant under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 1974?
- Zaheer-Ud-Din, Etc. Versus (Mst.) Khurshida Begum, Etc. Zaheer-Ud-Din, Etc. vs (Mst.) Khurshida Begum, EtcK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 584 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zaheer Aslam vs The Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through ViceChancellor and 2 others1995 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition filed by Zaheer Aslam, who challenged the merit formula prescribed for admission to the M.Sc. Computer Science program by the Baha-ud-Din Zakariya University, Multan, as contained in its prospectus for the 1994-95 session. The petitioner contended that the formula—which calculated merit based on total B.Sc. marks plus National Cadet Core (NCC) marks, without adding subject-specific marks for Computer Science—was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, drawing a comparison to other departments where subject-specific marks were added. The core legal question was whether the university's prescribed merit formula for M.Sc. Computer Science admission was discriminatory and liable to be altered by the court. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since graduates with Mathematics and Statistics were also eligible for M.Sc. Computer Science without receiving weightage for those specific subjects, denying subject-weightage to Computer Science graduates was fair and non-discriminatory. The court laid down the principle that a university's academic criteria and prospectus formulae cannot be interfered with or rewritten by a court through a writ petition when such rules apply uniformly to all eligible candidates and do not cause unlawful discrimination.
Questions settled- Whether a university's admission merit formula for a post-graduate program is discriminatory if it does not add subject-specific undergraduate marks when graduates from other eligible disciplines also receive no such subject weightage?
- Can the High Court alter or direct the revision of a university's academic prospectus and admission criteria through a writ of mandamus?
- Whether the exclusion of subject-specific undergraduate marks in calculating merit for M.Sc. Computer Science admission infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Zaheer Aslam vs The Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan Through ItsK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 156 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Zaheer Ashraf and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed And Another vs The Inspector General of Police And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 17 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Zaffar Pervez vs Syed Nasiruddin K. Kamal Shah through his Legal Heirs1995 CLC 1719 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah Khan vs Abu BakarK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 141 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Yasin vs Prime Minister of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 1044 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ullah Alias Phola vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 414 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-26Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others1995 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by special leave was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal as time-barred. The appellant, a Line Superintendent under WAPDA, was penalized with recovery of Rs. 1,25,000 for alleged negligence. He filed a departmental appeal which was initially unaddressed until the Wafaqi Mohtasib intervened, leading to its rejection on 30-9-1986, which was communicated to the appellant on 21-11-1986. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Tribunal on 4-12-1986. The core legal question was whether the appeal to the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 offers two options: filing an appeal after waiting 90 days for a departmental decision, or filing within 30 days of the communication of the final departmental order. Since the appellant appealed within 30 days of receiving the rejection order, the appeal was within time. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the matter for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal to the Service Tribunal filed within 30 days of communication of the final departmental order is within limitation under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can an aggrieved employee choose to wait for the final decision on a departmental appeal rather than filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal immediately after 90 days?
- How is the limitation period calculated under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 when a departmental rejection order is communicated on a date later than its issuance?
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs M.G.O., M.G.O. Branch, GHQ Rawalpindi and 3 others1995 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The petitioner, despite being senior to the private respondents, was denied promotion by the departmental authority based on unfavorable entries in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). After exhausting departmental remedies, the petitioner sought a direction from the Service Tribunal for his promotion on the basis of seniority. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld this decision, ruling that the question of fitness for promotion is expressly barred from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant to hold a particular post or be promoted?
- Can a civil servant challenge a denial of promotion based on ACR entries before the Service Tribunal under Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Whether the statutory bar on promotion-related questions under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 applies when a senior civil servant is bypassed for promotion by a departmental promotion committee?
- Zafar Iqbal vs Habib Jute Mills Limited, Khushab through Its ManagerK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 12 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-06-09Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal and others vs Yaqoob and 5 others1995 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Chiniot, which set aside the trial court's decision and decreed the plaintiff's suit for the cancellation of a registered gift deed. The core legal question was whether the voluntary execution and valid registration of the gift deed by the deceased donor in favour of his daughter had been satisfactorily proved. The Lahore High Court held that the beneficiary failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the voluntary execution of the gift deed, especially given that the beneficiary did not enter the witness box, crucial attesting witnesses belonged to a far-off village, and the transaction disinherited the donor's only son and other daughters without any justifiable cause. The court established the key principles that registration of a deed is not equivalent to proof of its execution, that in cases of denial, the beneficiary must affirmatively prove voluntary execution, and that findings of fact by the lower appellate Court based on proper appraisal of the record are binding in revision. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether registration of a gift deed is equivalent to proof of its valid execution when execution is denied?
- Upon whom lies the onus to prove the execution and valid registration of a gift deed executed by an illiterate and aged donor?
- Can the non-appearance of the beneficiary in the witness box to depose about the voluntary execution of a gift deed affect the validity of the transaction?
- Are concurrent or divergent findings of fact by the lower appellate court binding upon the High Court in civil revision proceedings?
- Zafar Iqbal and others vs The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range, Multan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 734 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal and 3 others vs Ghulam Abid and 2 others1995 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal And 3 Others vs Ghulam Abid And 2 Other1995 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Zafar Hayat vs The State1995 SCMR 896 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged a High Court judgment that had modified the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment for a murder conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony in an alleged night-time occurrence where the presence of witnesses was contested. The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimony of the complainant and a chance witness, noting significant inconsistencies regarding their presence at the scene, the lack of independent corroboration for the alleged source of light, and the unconvincing nature of their reasons for being present at the late hour. Furthermore, the Court noted that the recovery of the weapon was not supported by forensic examination. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The principle laid down is that where the presence of eye-witnesses is doubtful and lacks independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained solely on their testimony.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene of the crime is doubtful?
- Is the testimony of a chance witness sufficient to support a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration?
- Does the failure to send a recovered weapon for forensic examination weaken the prosecution's case?
- Zafar Arbab vs Asim Hayat Kiyani and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1784 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1997 Civil Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmed vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 681995 PLC (C.S.) 1118 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-03-29Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmad, Etc. vs Govt of Pakistan1997 KLR Civil Case 24 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
- Zafar Abbas vs The State1995 SCMR 1809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction and sentence for possession of 11 grams of heroin under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the heroin, including its container, exceeded the 10-gram threshold required for a more severe sentence, given the absence of evidence regarding the weight of the container itself. The Supreme Court held that since the prosecution failed to establish that the heroin was weighed exclusive of its container (a waxed envelope), the possibility existed that the actual weight of the contraband was 10 grams or less. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant regarding the weight of the narcotics. The principle laid down is that in cases involving threshold quantities of narcotics for sentencing purposes, the prosecution must provide positive evidence that the contraband was weighed without its container; failure to do so creates a reasonable doubt that must be resolved in the accused's favor.
Questions settled- Does the failure to weigh narcotics exclusive of their container create a reasonable doubt regarding the quantity possessed?
- Should the benefit of the doubt be extended to an accused when the weight of recovered narcotics is borderline regarding statutory sentencing thresholds?
- Is the prosecution required to prove that the weight of recovered heroin was calculated without its container to justify a sentence exceeding the threshold for 10 grams?
- Zabar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Z.Arak Khan vs The Sessions Judge, Quetta And 5 Other1995 MLD 1831 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1355 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
- Yousuf and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1739 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Khan and another vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1200 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Ayub Khan, Mpa and anothers vs Major (Rtd.) Aftab Ahmad Khan1995 MLD 1179 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Ayub Khan, Mpa And Another vs Major (Rtd.) Aftab Ahmad Khan1995 MLD 1179 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
- Younas Masih vs Deputy Director, Food, Lahore and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 116 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed before the Punjab Service Tribunal by the appellant, a Chowkidar who was removed from service following departmental proceedings for distilling liquor on duty premises, despite his acquittal by a criminal court. The core legal question was whether the same officer could competently act as both the Authority and the Authorised Officer under the disciplinary rules, combining functions to the prejudice of the accused. The Tribunal held that combining the roles of the Authority and the Authorised Officer without independent assessment violates principles of natural justice, and that an officer acting in both capacities is limited to awarding only a minor penalty rather than imposing major penalties like removal from service. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Authority for fresh decision in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the same officer can legally act as both the Authority and the Authorised Officer in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Does the combination of the roles of Authority and Authorised Officer in a single officer prejudice the right of the accused to a fair trial?
- What is the extent of the powers of an officer who is authorised to act as both the Authority and the Authorised Officer under the disciplinary rules?
- Can an officer acting as both Authority and Authorised Officer competently impose a major penalty like removal from service?
- Yasin vs The StateK.LR. 1997 Sharia Cases 285 · Federal Shariat Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Yasin Khan Baber vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
- Yashdev Inder Singh vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1995 PTD 711 [209 I T R 172] · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
- Yara vs Haji Umar Hayat And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad vs Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 2 others1995 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged the competency of the Managing Director and the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to amend Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. The petitioner contended that such an amendment fell outside the scope of Section 18 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, and that Section 29 of the Act only envisaged the framing of regulations, not rules, by the Authority with the approval of the Government. The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 18 and 29 of the Act, noting that Section 29 is of a general nature, whereas Section 18 specifically empowers the Authority to prescribe the terms and conditions of service of its employees. The Court held that because rules regulating disciplinary proceedings relate directly to the terms and conditions of service, the Authority is fully competent to make or amend them under Section 18 without requiring government approval under Section 29. Consequently, the amendment to Rule 12 was declared valid, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Water and Power Development Authority has the exclusive competency to amend its employees' disciplinary rules under Section 18 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 without government approval?
- Does Section 29 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 restrict the Authority's specific power under Section 18 to prescribe terms and conditions of service?
- Are rules regulating disciplinary proceedings of WAPDA employees considered part of their terms and conditions of service under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958?
- Yaqoob and 3 others vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi1995 PLC 302 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-08-20Read full judgment →
- Yaki Khan & Umer Hayat vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
- Yahya Siddiqi vs Mrs. Mahboob Fatima through Legal Heirs1995 CLC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
- Workers Union (Regd.) C.B.A. United Bank Ltd. Vehari Zone through General Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Union, MultanK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 150 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Woolwich Building Society vs Inland Revenue Commissioners1995 PTD 26 · House of LordsRead full judgment →
- Wazir Gul vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
- Wazeer Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 229 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-21Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and another vs Javaid Ahmed and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which accepted the respondent's appeal, setting aside his termination from service and ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits on the ground of mala fides. The core legal question involved whether the Service Tribunal committed an illegality by failing to explicitly record a finding on the question of limitation raised by the petitioner, and whether the termination of the respondent while retaining his juniors was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal, being conscious of the limitation objection, had impliedly rejected it by deciding the matter on merits, and that the termination was indeed mala fide as junior employees appointed on the same day were retained. The Court laid down that an omission to write a formal finding on limitation does not vitiate a judgment where the circumstances show the objection was consciously considered and overruled, and refused to grant leave to appeal as no question of legal or general public importance was raised.
Questions settled- Whether failure of the Tribunal to explicitly record a finding on limitation vitiates its judgment when the objection was raised and considered?
- Can the termination of an employee during probation be held mala fide when junior employees appointed on the same day are retained in service?
- Does a petition for leave to appeal lie against a factual finding of mala fides where no question of public importance is involved?
- Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and 3 others vs Shan1995 PLC (C.S.) 104 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, an Assistant Line Man employed by WAPDA, applied for extraordinary leave without pay which was refused by the competent authority. Due to his continued absence and inability to serve notice personally, a notice was published in the official gazette. Acting under Rule 8(b) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978, the competent authority dismissed him from service without a formal show-cause notice under Rule 5, deeming personal service impracticable. After his departmental appeal failed, the respondent approached the Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the appeal and substituted the dismissal with a reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale for two years. WAPDA petitioned for leave to appeal, arguing that once the merits were not pressed before the Tribunal, reduction of penalty was unjustified, and that Rule 5(a) applies differently. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in substituting an order of dismissal with a lesser penalty when the appeal was not pressed on merits?
- Whether Rule 5(a) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978 applies to an inefficient worker or habitual malingerer in cases of unauthorized absence?
- Under what circumstances can a competent authority dispense with a show-cause notice under Rule 8(b) of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Water and Power Development Authority Through its Chairman vs Barkat Ali and 2 others1995 CLC 654 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman/Chief1995 PLD Supreme Court 631 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from a service dispute concerning the dismissal of an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) following a criminal conviction, and subsequent proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question is whether an employee of WAPDA falls within the definition of a civil servant of the Federal Government under section 17(1B) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, thereby barring jurisdiction of the Labour Courts in favor of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the legal status of a WAPDA employee under section 17(1B) raises a question of law rather than a mere question of fact, and granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower forums and the High Court erred in assuming jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the status of WAPDA employees under the relevant statutory provisions involves a pure question of law regarding jurisdictional competence.
Questions settled- Whether an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority is a civil servant of the Federal Government under section 17(1B) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958?
- Does the question of whether a WAPDA employee falls within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal constitute a question of law or a question of fact?
- Can a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 be maintained by a WAPDA employee governed by section 17(1B) of the WAPDA Act?