Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- Msl. SODHI vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 136 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-21Read full judgment →
- Mrs. S. R. MALIK vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB, EDUCATION1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 114 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-10-31Read full judgment →
- Mrs. H. A. SHAH vs DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE PUNJAB, LAHORE1975 PLC (C.S.T.) 69 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-22Read full judgment →
- MOZAMMIL HUSSAIN vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1311 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-11Read full judgment →
- Moulvi FATEH DIN AND Others vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-24Read full judgment →
- MOULA BUX vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 805 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-19Read full judgment →
- MOOSO vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 206 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-20Read full judgment →
- MOHARRAM AND Another vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 44 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-08Read full judgment →
- MOHAN LALConvict vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
- MOHAN LAL vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD YOUSUF And 13 Other vs Messrs HAIDARY TIN FACTORY Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 94 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-18Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SIDDIQ vs The KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE Ltd.,1975 PLC 119 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-09-26Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SHARIF AHMAD vs The SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1975 PL C [C.S.T.] 73 · Punjab Appellate Tribunal · 1974-01-11Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RAMZAN And Another vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON (PAKISTAN) Lid., KARACHI1975 PLC 124 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-05Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD RAMZAN And 80 Other vs POWER-LOOM WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 214 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD KHAQAN ABBA SI vs PAKISTAN REFINERY Ltd., KARACHI And 21975 PLC 690 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1975-03-08Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD ILYAS QURESHI vs Khan MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN, SETTLEMENT1975 SCMR 213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property under settlement laws, specifically regarding the allocation of the back portion of shops in Multan Cantt. The core legal question was whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a miscellaneous petition challenging final orders passed by subordinate settlement authorities years after those orders had attained finality. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had set aside the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order as being without lawful authority. The Court held that once a transfer order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had been affirmed through the appellate and revisional hierarchy, it attained finality. The Chief Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to reopen these settled matters through an incompetent miscellaneous petition filed years later, particularly without any explanation for the significant delay. The key principle laid down is that settlement authorities cannot exercise revisional or review jurisdiction to reopen matters that have already attained finality through the exhaustion of statutory remedies, especially after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
Questions settled- Can the Chief Settlement Commissioner reopen a matter after the finality of orders passed by subordinate settlement authorities?
- Is a miscellaneous petition competent to challenge an order that has already been affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities?
- Does an inordinate and unexplained delay preclude the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by a Settlement Commissioner?
- MOHAMMAD IDREES KHALID vs MOHAMMAD ABDUL KARIM1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 87 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Messrs ADAMJI COTTON MILLS Ltd., KARACHI1975 PLC 221 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-03-09Read full judgment →
- MOHAHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-27Read full judgment →
- MOHABAT vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- Mistri AHMED DIN vs MUHAMMAD MUNIR1975 SCMR 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court concerning the right of a landlord, who acquired property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, to charge rent based on the latest municipal assessment. The core legal question was whether such a landlord is required to seek the approval of the Rent Controller under Section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 before increasing rent based on municipal assessments. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the relationship between the parties is governed by Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Court held that Section 30, which contains an overriding effect clause, expressly permits a transferee to charge rent according to the latest assessment by a local authority without needing prior approval from the Rent Controller. Consequently, the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 regarding rent increases do not restrict the specific rights granted to transferees under the 1958 Act. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Does Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 override the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 regarding rent increases?
- Is a transferee of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 required to obtain Rent Controller approval before charging rent based on the latest municipal assessment?
- Can a landlord charge rent based on the latest municipal assessment without recourse to Section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Miss E. ANDREWS vs NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against an eviction order passed due to her default in depositing rent as directed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller had initially ordered the petitioner to deposit arrears in installments and pay future rent, but upon her failure to comply, her defence was struck off, leading to an eviction order. The petitioner argued that the default was not deliberate, citing her counsel's failure to inform her of the specific payment details, and requested condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner admitted her counsel had instructed her to deposit rent, yet she failed to inquire about the specific amount or deadline, and further neglected to pay current rent for over six months. The Court held that the petitioner was guilty of laches and that the Controller's action of striking off the defence was justified under the law. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to inquire about the specific amount or deadline for rent deposit after being instructed by counsel constitute a valid excuse for default?
- Is a Rent Controller justified in striking off a tenant's defence upon default in complying with an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a tenant claim lack of deliberate default when they have failed to pay current rent for a period exceeding six months?
- Mirza INAYAT BEG vs THE STATE1975 P Cr. L J 59 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-08Read full judgment →
- MIRAN BUX vs NIAZ AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which set aside the convictions and death/life imprisonment sentences of the respondents for murder and attempt to murder under sections 148, 302/149, and 307/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question involved whether the High Court was justified in granting the benefit of the doubt and acquitting the respondents due to unexplained injuries on the accused, discrepancies in the prosecution's version regarding the distance of firing, and a plausible counter-version. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's appreciation of evidence was neither perverse nor arbitrary, noting that the prosecution failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused and that a reasonable doubt was successfully cast on the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that the accused are not bound to set up a specific positive defence and that the prosecution's failure to explain injuries on the accused persons can form a valid basis for extending the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons entitles them to the benefit of doubt?
- Is it mandatory for an accused person to establish a definite defence case, or is it sufficient to cast a doubt on the prosecution's case?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with an acquittal order passed by the High Court based on a reasonable appreciation of evidence and material discrepancies?
- MIR ZAMAN vs Not Found1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 101 · Administrative Tribunal · 1974-08-30Read full judgment →
- Mir HYDER BUX vs RAEES MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim of ownership over certain plots of land based on an alleged oral gift from his late uncle, Mir Ilahi Bux. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a valid gift, specifically regarding the essential requirement of the delivery of possession. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, affirmed the lower courts' findings. The Court held that the evidence, including letters relied upon by the petitioner, did not constitute a valid gift but rather expressed a pious wish. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that even if a gift were intended, the absence of delivery of possession rendered it ineffective. The Court also noted that the property had subsequently been sold to a third party for valuable consideration, creating new property rights that could not be displaced by an unproven oral gift. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that an oral gift is incomplete and invalid without the actual delivery of possession.
Questions settled- Is an oral gift valid under law if it is not accompanied by the delivery of possession?
- Can letters expressing a pious wish be construed as a valid gift of property?
- Do concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of delivery of possession warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- MIR AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, whereby the petitioners' application for suspension of sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was rejected, while their co-accused was admitted to bail. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court's brief order refusing to suspend the petitioners' sentence was legally deficient for want of reasons and whether the Supreme Court should interfere with such discretionary orders. The Supreme Court held that although the order was brief, the High Court had applied its mind and exercised its discretion, and since the matter of suspending a sentence is discretionary, it is not open to challenge before the Supreme Court absent compelling grounds. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a brief order by the High Court refusing bail or suspension of sentence under section 426, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, does not warrant Supreme Court interference where it reflects application of mind and exercise of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Whether an order of the High Court refusing to suspend a sentence under section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is open to interference by the Supreme Court when it is brief?
- Does a brief order rejecting an application for suspension of sentence necessarily render it a non-speaking order if judicial mind is applied?
- Is the matter of suspending a sentence pending appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 discretionary?
- MIR AKBAR vs THE STATE1975 SCMR 281 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, Mir Akbar, by the S.D.M. Swabi under Section 14 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the illegal possession of 14,500 rounds of .22 bore ammunition found in his vehicle. The conviction and a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment, along with the confiscation of the vehicle, were upheld by the Peshawar High Court. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the conviction was sustainable despite the absence of public witnesses and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the petitioner's plea regarding the alleged misconduct of a police witness was not raised at trial and actually implied his culpability. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the recovery of such a substantial quantity of ammunition negated claims of fabrication. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that it would not interfere with the quantum of punishment given the gravity of the offense, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Does the absence of public witnesses in a midnight recovery of ammunition invalidate a conviction under the Arms Ordinance 1965?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with the quantum of a sentence that is within the legal limits prescribed by statute?
- Can a defense plea regarding the misconduct of a prosecution witness be raised for the first time during a petition for leave to appeal?
- Mian REHMATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition on the grounds of laches. The petitioner challenged an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner on 8th August 1961, which had transferred a disputed house to the respondent. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 1974, claiming ignorance of the 1961 order. The High Court rejected the petition, finding no justification for the twelve-year delay. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a delay of over twelve years in challenging an administrative order could be condoned based on a claim of ignorance. The Court held that the petitioner's claim of ignorance was untenable, noting that the Settlement Commissioner's order explicitly stated the parties and their counsel were present when the decision was announced. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a reasonable person would not wait nearly thirteen years to ascertain the outcome of their own legal proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition due to laches and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Can a writ petition be maintained after a delay of twelve years based on a claim of ignorance of the impugned order?
- Is a statement in a judicial or quasi-judicial order that parties were present during the announcement of the decision sufficient to refute a claim of ignorance?
- Mian FAZAL MUHAMMAD THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS vs PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the non-payment of funds for construction work performed by the appellant under an agreement with the respondents. The agreement included an arbitration clause, and the matter was referred to the Superintending Engineer. Alleging the arbitrator failed to proceed with reasonable dispatch, the appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, seeking the arbitrator's removal. The trial court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by the High Court, which ruled that the Government does not 'carry on business' under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was revealed that the arbitrator had rendered an award during the pendency of the removal application and had become functus officio. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the application for removal had become infructuous. The appeal was dismissed as the underlying issues were no longer live, rendering the jurisdictional questions moot.
Questions settled- Does the Government 'carry on business' within the meaning of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does an application for the removal of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 1940 become infructuous if the arbitrator renders an award while the application is pending?
- METAL PACKAGES Ltd., MULTAN vs INAYAT ALI1975 PLC 827 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs ZELIN Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 431 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs YOUSUF TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs Mst. KARIMUNNISA1975 PLC 401 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-01-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs TANVEER TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., TANDO ADAM vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 451 · Labour Court · 1972-10-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs TAJ Co. Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS UNION And Another1975 PLC 441 · Labour Court · 1972-10-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs STEELEX .WINDOW MANUFACTURERS KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 87 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-11Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SOOFI TEXTILE AND PRINTING MILLS LID.,KARACHI vs ABDUL AZIZ1975 PLC 260 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS LTD., KARACHI vs SAMIULLAH And 21975 PLC 166 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs SIMPLEX RUBBER MANUFACTURERS Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 512 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-01-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs SHALIMAR SILK MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs MAZDOOR UNION1975 PLC 447 · Labour Court · 1972-10-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs SHAKIL SILK INDUSTRIES, KARACHI vs Mian Syed LAIQ1975 PLC 213 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST HOSPITAL, KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 868 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs SCHINDLER FUTEHALLY & MERIN Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 843 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs SAIFUDDIN AKBAR ALI vs BHASHAM1975 PLC 502 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs S. GUL MUHAMMAD & SONS vs ABDUL KHALIQUE1975 PLC 509 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs REPUBLIC MOTORS Ltd., KARACHI vs Syed ABID ALI BURNEY , .1975 PLC 163 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS RAJABALI MOHAMMAD ALI KHOPPAR MILLS, KARACHI vs WORKERS'1975 PLC 85 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs RAFIQ & COMPANY, KARACHI And 6 Other . vs ADAM1975 PLC 679 · Labour Court · -Read full judgment →
- Messrs QUEENSLAND INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES1975 PLC 232 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-09-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs PIXIE CHILDREN WEAR vs HAMID ALI1975 PLC 46 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PAKISTAN RUBBER PRODUCTS vs JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER1975 SCMR 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an office objection that a petition for special leave to appeal was barred by 432 days. The High Court delivered its judgment on 31st October 1972, and a review petition filed on 7th November 1972 was dismissed on 11th February 1974. The petition for special leave to appeal was subsequently filed on 7th March 1974. The core legal question concerns whether the limitation period for filing a petition for special leave to appeal starts afresh from the date of the dismissal of a review petition or whether only the time spent pursuing the review can be excluded, and whether an unexplained delay after the dismissal of the review warrants condonation. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period does not start afresh from the date of the review order; at best, the time spent pursuing the review may be excluded, but an unexcused delay between the dismissal of the review and the filing of the petition remains fatal. The petition was accordingly dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Does the time for filing a petition for special leave to appeal start running afresh from the date of the order dismissing a review petition?
- Can the time spent in pursuing a review petition be excluded for the purpose of condoning delay in filing a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Messrs PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS Ltd., KARACHI vs MOHAMMAD AQIL1975 PLC 436 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-04-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs PAKISTAN CORPORATION Ltd., KARACHI vs WAHID BUX1975 PLC 350 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-02-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs ORIENTAL SILK MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs ABDUL QAYOOM1975 PLC 267 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs OLYMPIA SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS Ltd. KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES'1975 PLC 847 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NAURING RICE SYNDICATE THROUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, KARACHI1975 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court refusing to grant further extension of time for furnishing surety in execution proceedings. The petitioner-syndicate had consented to a decree for the recovery of money but subsequently defaulted on payments. During execution proceedings, the High Court ordered the petitioner to furnish surety. After failing to comply within the initial timeframe and receiving multiple extensions, the petitioner sought further time, which the High Court rejected. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's discretionary order refusing further extension of time. The Supreme Court held that the order was neither unjust, unreasonable, nor arbitrary, noting that the petitioner had already been granted multiple opportunities. The Court affirmed that the refusal of a discretionary extension, absent evidence of arbitrariness, does not warrant interference. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's discretionary order regarding procedural extensions unless the order is shown to be unjust, unreasonable, or arbitrary.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court's discretionary order refusing an extension of time to furnish surety?
- Can an objection regarding the validity of an order under Order XXI Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure be entertained if the petition is time-barred?
- Is a discretionary order rejecting a prayer for extension of time subject to interference by the Supreme Court if it is not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable?
- Messrs NATIONAL STEEL MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 427 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-04-18Read full judgment →
- MESSRS NATIONAL STEEL MILLS LTD. vs NATIONAL STEEL EMPLOYEES' UNION AND comes1975 SCMR 438 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises from a judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan which set aside an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and restored a Labour Court decision ordering the reinstatement of 55 dismissed employees of the petitioner-company. An industrial dispute had led to a strike declared illegal by the Provincial Government, followed by the dismissal of the workers. Respondent No. 1 trade union filed an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution and later refiled. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement, but the Appellate Tribunal allowed the company's appeal, holding that respondent No. 1 lacked the status of a Collective Bargaining Agent at the relevant time. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order under writ jurisdiction to prevent injustice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court erred in overlooking the jurisdictional defect regarding the representative character of the respondent trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Questions settled- Whether a trade union lacking Collective Bargaining Agent status is competent to maintain an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction interfere with an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal based on a concession of counsel regarding jurisdictional facts?
- Whether the lack of representative character of a trade union constitutes a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the matter in industrial adjudication?
- MESSRS MUHAMMADI TILES & CONCRETE WORKS, KARACHI vs WORKERS'1975 PLC 151 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs MONNO O MOTORS, KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 744 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs KOHINOOR CHEMICAL Co. Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS UNION1975 PLC 269 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs KATRAK & COMPANY vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 535 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs KARIM VERA SHIRT GARMENTS vs Syed PASHA HUSSAIN1975 PLC 33 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-08-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs KAPADIA TRANSPORT Co. Ltd., KARACHI vs LABOUR UNION1975 PLC 839 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs JAFFAR IBRAHIM & COMPANY Ltd., KARACHI vs ABDUL JAMIL1975 PLC 543 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs ISMAILSONS PAINTS Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 113 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-16Read full judgment →
- MESSRS INTERNATIONAL LABORATORIES LTD., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES UNION1975 PLC 266 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS Ltd., KARACHI vs MUMTABAZ1975 PLC 881 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HUSSAIN SUGAR MILLS LTD., KARACHI AND ANOTHER vs A LI1975 PLC 66 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Messrs HUMA HOSIERY vs WORKERS UNION1975 PLC 344 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-08Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HINDUSTAN SANITARY AND DRAINAGE WORKS vs HAKIMUDDIN AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 285 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1975-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against tenants under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the amendments introduced by West Pakistan Ordinance No. XXI of 1965, specifically regarding the landlord's requirement for reconstruction and the tenant's right to restoration of possession under section 13(5-B), applied retrospectively to pending ejectment applications. Relying on the principle that substantive law changes are generally prospective unless a clear legislative intent to the contrary exists, the Court held, consistent with its precedent in 'Hassan and others v. Fancy Foundation', that the amendment to section 13(2)(vi) was substantive and prospective, thus not governing pending cases. However, it clarified that section 13(5-B) could be invoked by tenants post-reconstruction, as its application is prospective in nature. The Court declined to adjudicate on the issue of subletting, as no findings had been recorded by the lower courts, leaving the determination of eligibility for restoration of possession to the Rent Controller.
Questions settled- Are the amendments to section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, introduced by Ordinance XXI of 1965, retrospective in operation?
- Does the amendment to section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, govern pending ejectment applications?
- Can a tenant invoke the provisions of section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in proceedings initiated prior to the enactment of the subsection?
- Messrs HAMDARD PRESS, KARACHI vs WAHIDULLAH1975 PLC 733 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs HAKIMSONS CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES'1975 PLC79 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-04-10Read full judgment →
- MESSRS HAJI Rehmatultah ABDUL SATTAR & Co., KARACHI vs GUL1975 PLC 734 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs HAIDERY TIN FACTORY Ltd., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD YOUSUF And 131975 PLC 510 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Messrs H. MUSHTAQ AHMAD Sons & Co. vs Mst. MAH BIBI AND OTHERS1975 PLC 854 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-09-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs H. M. HABIBULLAH & Co. vs MIR SULTAN1975 PLC 633 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-04-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS Ltd., KARACHI vs LABOUR UNION1975 PLC 485 · Labour Court · 1972-11-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs GRAX Ltd., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 715 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-07-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs GRAX Lid., KARACHI vs WORKERS' UNION1975 PLC 132 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs GHANI TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI vs ABDUL QAYYUM1975 PLC 540 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs EXCIDE BATTERIES (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI vs ASFANDYAR1975 PLC 569 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC97 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-07-31Read full judgment →
- MESSRS DOST MUHAMMAD COTTON MILLS LTD., KARACHI vs SHER ZADA1975 PLC 270 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs DENTOGENE LABORATORIES Ltd., KARACHI vs BADIUZZAMAN1975 PLC 318 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · -Read full judgment →
- Messrs DAWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, KARACHI vs HAZRAT MUHAMMAD YOUSUF1975 PLC 48 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by an employer to challenge a Sindh Labour Court order directing the reinstatement of a respondent workman with back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 could be served by an Advocate on behalf of a workman, whether the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 applied to establishments with fewer than 50 employees, whether the workman had voluntarily deserted his employment, and whether the grievance petition was barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the word 'himself' in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 does not exclude the agency of an Advocate, that clause (3) of Standing Order 12 applies to establishments regardless of having fewer than 50 employees, that the workman had not deserted his service but was refused employment upon returning from leave, and that the petition was within time. The petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 can be served by an Advocate on behalf of a workman?
- Do the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 apply to industrial establishments employing less than fifty workers?
- Does the term 'himself' in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 exclude the representation or agency of a legal practitioner?
- When does time begin to run for filing a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 in the absence of a written order of termination?
- MESSRS DADABHOY CERAMIC INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI vs LABOUR UNION1975 PLC 114 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI vs LABOUR UNION1975 PLC 170 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-08-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. LYALLPUR vs Mst. SAKINA BIBI1975 PLC 615 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs CORNING GLASS (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI vs M UNAWAR AHMAD And Another ,1975 PLC 40 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1973-07-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs CONFORCE Ltd., KARACHI vs GHULAM HUSSAIN And 13 Others1975 PLC 272 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-02-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs CHEMPHER (Pak.) Ltd., KARACHI vs Mst. AHMEDUN NISA1975 PLC 780 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS CHEMPHAR (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs N/A1975 PLC 707 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs CARGO DESPATCH Co. Ltd., KARACHI vs SHER WALI1975 PLC 701 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs CAFE SEENA, KARACHI vs EMPLOYEES' UNION1975 PLC 698 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-06-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs BURMAN & COMPANY, KARACHI vs Miss F. J. DUBASH1975 PLC 537 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1974-05-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs BURJORJI COWASJEE & Co., KARACHI vs PULLAN1975 PLC 882 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-10-21Read full judgment →
- MESSRS BUNDIAL BUS SERVICEs vs Mst. SANJEEDA AFZAL AND OTHERS1975 SCMR 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1974-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which refused to stay the execution of a money decree awarded as damages and compensation for a fatal accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The petitioners, against whom the decree was passed, sought a stay of execution pending the disposal of their appeal. The core legal question was whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the stay, thereby allowing the decree-holders to realize the decretal amount. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the High Court had balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the decree-holders to receive the funds while requiring them to furnish sufficient security for reimbursement should the appeal succeed. The Court emphasized that decree-holders should not be deprived of the fruits of their decree, particularly when the breadwinner had been lost years prior, and that the petitioners' interests were adequately safeguarded by the security requirement. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Does the refusal to stay the execution of a money decree pending appeal constitute a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
- Should a decree-holder be permitted to execute a money decree while an appeal is pending if the interests of the judgment-debtor are protected by security?
- Is the potential for a 'paper-decree' a relevant consideration for a court when deciding whether to stay the execution of a judgment?
- Messrs BROOKE BOND (PAKISTAN) Ltd., KARACHI vs RAB NAWAZ And Another1975 PLC 497 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1975-02-17Read full judgment →