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.
- Mirza JAMEEL AHMED Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,1986 PLC 990 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
- ALTAF AHMAD KHAN Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1986 PLC 974 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
- 1986 PLC 5801986 PLC 580 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
- KAMALUDDIN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB. FINANCE DEPARTMENT1986 PLC 1042 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- Sh. AMER MAFTOON Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1986 PLC 1037 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD FAZAL Versus THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN1986 PLC 1035 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, LAHORE CIRCLE, LAHORE1986 PLC 1030 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- ABDUL NAWAZ Versus POLITICAL ASSISTANT/ COMMANDANT, B.M.P., DERA GHAZI KHAN1986 PLC 1028 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT1986 PLC 1021 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- GHULAM QADIR Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT1986 PLC 1016 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
- SHAHID MAKHDOOM Versus DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE CROPS REPORT SERVICE, PUNJAB1986 PLC 1010 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- FAROOQ AHMAD Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR1986 PLC 1007 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Sh. ABDUL JABBAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through the Secretary, SGA&I Department (Secret Section), Lahore1986 PLC 1003 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Malik NAZIR AHMAD Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, SARGODHA REGION,1986 PLC 1002 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-24Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 9951985 PLC 995 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
- NEK MUHAMMAD ROPAAL Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, CO-OPERATIVES DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1985 PLC 993 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- Syed ISHFAQUL HASSAN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT1985 PLC 986 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT1985 PLC 983 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 9721985 PLC 972 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- ABDUS SALAM KHAN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATION1985 PLC 969 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT QF PUNJAB, EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT1985 PLC 960 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
- MANZOOR MASUD TAMANNA Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, L. G & R. D. DEPARTMENT1985 PLC 958 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-04Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 9541985 PLC 954 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-04Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 9511985 PLC 951 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 9451985 PLC 945 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 9311985 PLC 931 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MOEEN-UD-DIN Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CANAL EASTERN BAR DIVISION, PAKPATTAN, DISTRICT SAHIWAL1985 PLC 913 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH Versus COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA DIVISION, GUJRANWALA1985 PLC 893 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 8901985 PLC 890 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 10851985 PLC 1085 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-05-03Read full judgment →
- Hafiz ABDUL LATIF Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1985 PLC 1038 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
- Syed MUHAMMAD HASHIM RIZVI Versus MEMBER (REVENUE) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1985 PLC 1033 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 10281985 PLC 1028 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
- 1985 PLC 10221985 PLC 1022 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus SUPERINTE DENT OF POLICE, VEHARI1984 PLC 1351 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
- ZAFARUL HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY (S & R), GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, BOARD OF REVENUE (S & R) WING, PUNJAB1984 PLC 1348 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
- JAVID SHAHEEN Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT1984 PLC 1344 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- 1984 PLC 13401984 PLC 1340 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-29Read full judgment →
- GHAYYOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE. PUNJAB, LAHORE1984 PLC 1339 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
- MURATAB ALI Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SARGODHA RANGE1984 PLC 1328 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1933-09-12Read full judgment →
- HAQ NAWAZ Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION, MULTAN1984 PLC 1322 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
- BASHIR AHMAD Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, EXCISE AND TAXATION, PUNJAB1984 PLC 1321 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-08-03Read full judgment →
- RAHAT SAEED KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLC 1308 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- MAHMOOD AHMAD MUGHAL Versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 1298 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
- MAZHAR MAHMOOD SHAIRANI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 PLC 1288 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
- EHSANULLAH SARDAR Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT1984 PLC 1282 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
- AZHAR AHMAD Versus COMMISSIONER, MULTAN DIVISION1984 PLC 1279 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AYUB Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALNAGAR1984 PLC 1277 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- MASOOD AHMAD Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRALKOT1984 PLC 1274 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- GHULAM BARI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT1984 PLC 1272 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- HAMID ASGHAR Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI1984 PLC 1263 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- KABIR ALI Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BUARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB1984 PLC 1257 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD BANARAS Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN1984 PLC 1254 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMOD ZAFAR BUKHARI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT1984 PLC 1248 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR ALI TOOR Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 PLC 1242 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, SUB-DIVISION1984 PLC 1240 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-05-27Read full judgment →
- BILAL AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLC 1223 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
- ZULFIQAR AHMAD Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALNAGAR1984 PLC 1214 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM BUTT Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB, LAHORE1984 PLC 1198 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLC 1187 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
- NASIR ALI SHAH Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT1984 PLC 1181 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-01-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL REHMAN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, SADAR SUB-DIVISION,GUJTANWALA1984 PLC 1174 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKBAR FAROOQI Versus DIRECTOR, LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION EXTENSION AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION SERVICE PUNJAB, LAHORE1984 PLC 1167 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RAHIM ARSHAD Versus DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PUNJAB LAHORE1984 PLC 1164 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-12-15Read full judgment →
- FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, LAHORE1984 PLC 1134 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- JAMSHAID AHMAD KAMTAR Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1984 PLC 1128 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
- TASSADAQ HUSSAIN BOKHARI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1984 PLC 1121 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-22Read full judgment →
- ETIMAD-UD-DIN Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SIALKOT1984 PLC 1116 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1984 PLC 1111 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- NISAR AHMAD Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, FAISALABAD RANGE, FAISALABAD1984 PLC 1109 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
- KHIZAR HAYAT Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE1984 PLC 1107 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
- QURBAN ALI Versus COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION1984 PLC 1099 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-08-04Read full judgment →
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1984 PLC 1092 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SHEIKHUPURA1984 PLC 1090 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMD IDREES Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION, LAHORE1983 PLC 1212 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
- SAHIB KHAN Versus DIRECTOR, FOOD, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER1983 PLC 1178 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- M. S. MUSHTAQ ISLAMABADI Versus DIRECTOR, PUBLIC RELATIONS, PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS1983 PLC 1146 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1983-04-30Read full judgment →
- KIPS ACADEMY Versus ZAHID MEHMOOD2025 PLC 148 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the orders of the Labour Court and the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, which allowed an employee's claim for outstanding legal dues and compensation. The core legal question was whether the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, has jurisdiction to entertain a wage claim against a trans-provincial establishment, or whether such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Peshawar High Court held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, operate independently and the jurisdiction of the Authority under the 2013 Act is not excluded for trans-provincial establishments having branches within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The court laid down that the Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013, retains jurisdiction to adjudicate wage claims of employees working within the province, even if the establishment is trans-provincial, and that participation in appellate proceedings before the Labour Court constitutes a surrender to jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the Authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013 have jurisdiction to entertain a wage claim against a trans-provincial establishment operating within the province?
- Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 exclude the jurisdiction of the Authority established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Payment of Wages Act, 2013?
- Can a petitioner challenge the jurisdiction of the Authority after voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction by filing an appeal before the Labour Court?
- PHILIP MORRIS (LAKSON TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED) Versus Syed ARIF SHAH2021 PLC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This labour appeal challenges the judgment of the Labour Court Haripur, which accepted the respondent employee's grievance petition against his termination and reinstated him with back benefits under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010. During the proceedings, the question arose as to whether the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter, given that the appellant establishment operated as a trans-provincial entity falling under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court examined the statutory definitions and the bar under Section 57(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, which restricts labour courts from entertaining matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Conceding to this legal position, the appellant acknowledged that the proper forum for redressal is the Commission. Consequently, the High Court held that the appeal and the underlying proceedings were not competent before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and ordered the return of the appeal for presentation before the proper forum.
Questions settled- Does a provincial labour court have jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition against a trans-provincial establishment operating in more than one province?
- Whether a labour appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal is competent against an order passed by a labour court lacking jurisdiction over a trans-provincial matter?
- What is the effect of Section 57(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 on the powers of a Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding matters falling within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
- KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION HAZARA DIRECTOR AT HARIPUR2019 PLC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, which directed the petitioner corporation to pay group insurance and gratuity to the legal heirs of a deceased winch operator. The core legal question was whether the deceased, employed on successive 88-day contracts, qualified as a "permanent workman" entitled to insurance benefits under the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the corporation was exempt from the Ordinance due to its own statutory rules. The Court held that the corporation’s practice of issuing short-term contracts to create artificial breaks in service was mala fide and intended to evade statutory obligations. Consequently, the deceased was deemed a permanent workman. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the corporation’s statutory rules did not address the specific employment conditions of the deceased, the exemption under the Ordinance did not apply. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's order. The judgment establishes that employers cannot use artificial service breaks to deny statutory benefits, and statutory exemptions are strictly construed against employers whose own rules fail to cover the specific employment terms.
Questions settled- Does an employer's practice of issuing successive short-term contracts to create artificial breaks in service prevent an employee from attaining the status of a permanent workman?
- Can a corporation claim exemption from the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, if its own statutory rules do not cover the specific terms and conditions of the employee's service?
- Is an employer liable to pay insurance benefits to the heirs of a deceased employee if the employer failed to insure the employee as required by Standing Order 10-B of the West Pakistan, Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- REGIONAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE, UBL MARDAN Versus HABIB UL HASSAN2015 PLC 246 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This labour appeal challenges a judgment of the Labour Court, Mardan, which partially accepted an employee's grievance petition by modifying his termination from service to a reduction in rank. The core legal questions concern the mandatory limitation period for serving a grievance notice and filing a grievance petition under labour laws, and whether the subsequent deposit of misappropriated funds serves as a mitigating circumstance in banking employment. The Peshawar High Court held that the employee's grievance notice and petition were hopelessly time-barred, that the court must determine limitation questions even if unpleaded, and that subsequent restitution of embezzled funds does not condone a breach of banking trust. The court laid down the principle that banking business relies on mutual trust, making termination the appropriate penalty for financial misappropriation regardless of later repayment, and that time-barred grievance petitions cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Whether a grievance petition filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Industrial Relations Ordinance is maintainable without seeking condonation of delay?
- Does the subsequent deposit of misappropriated funds constitute a mitigating circumstance for a bank employee guilty of financial embezzlement?
- Can a court permit an employee to amend a grievance petition to introduce fresh grounds after the conclusion of the trial?
- HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD1988 PLC 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-09-15Read full judgment →
- MESSRS KHYBER TOBACCO Co. LTD., MARDAN Versus LABOUR UNION AND ANOTHER1976 PLC 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MEPCO, MULTAN Versus ALLAH BACHAYA SAJJAD2012 PLC 40 · PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNALRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Punjab Labour Court, which allowed a grievance petition filed by a former MEPCO employee, Allah Bachaya, who had been removed from service for unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether the grievance petition, filed eight years after the employee's removal, was maintainable despite the significant delay and the employee's pursuit of departmental remedies. The Tribunal held that the petition was hopelessly time-barred. The employee, as a civil servant, was required to approach the Federal Service Tribunal within 120 days of filing his departmental appeal, as mandated by the Federal Services Tribunals Act, 1973. The Tribunal emphasized that pursuing departmental reminders and appeals does not toll the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Labour Court's judgment, ruling that the court had wrongly assumed jurisdiction over a time-barred matter. The key principle laid down is that limitation periods must be strictly enforced, and courts cannot entertain stale claims or ignore statutory time limits, as doing so undermines the effectiveness of labour and service legislation.
Questions settled- Does the filing of departmental reminders and appeals extend the statutory limitation period for approaching the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Is a grievance petition filed eight years after the cause of action maintainable under labour laws?
- Can a Labour Court entertain a service matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Must the question of limitation be strictly applied by the Service Tribunal regardless of the merits of the case?
- FACTORY MANAGER, RUSTAM SOHRAB CYCLE FACTORY Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS2010 PLC 1424 · PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL · 2010-06-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged orders of the Punjab Labour Court, which refused to summon records or grant a stay regarding a trade union referendum. The petitioner contended that a convicted person was involved in the union's affairs, violating statutory bars, and that employees from a separate factory were improperly inducted into the union's executive body. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the referendum process given the involvement of a convicted individual and the legality of inducting employees from an independent establishment. The Tribunal held that the induction of employees from the separate factory was permissible as they fell within the allowed 25% limit for outsiders. However, regarding the convicted person, the Tribunal enforced a previous undertaking given by the union's counsel. It directed the Registrar and the union to ensure that the convicted individual does not participate in the referendum, directly or indirectly, affirming that such participation would render the entire electoral process a nullity. The judgment reinforces the binding nature of prior undertakings and statutory prohibitions regarding the participation of convicted persons in trade union activities.
Questions settled- Can a convicted person participate in a trade union referendum under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008?
- Are employees from a separate establishment permitted to be inducted into the executive body of a trade union as outsiders?
- Does the participation of a convicted person in a trade union referendum render the entire process a nullity?
- HABIB AHMAD Versus PTCL2025 PLC 81 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012 challenging the termination of the petitioner, a Lab Technician, by the respondent (PTCL). The core legal question was whether the petitioner was an employee of PTCL or a third-party contractor ('Ask Development'), and whether the termination was legally sustainable. The Commission held that the petitioner was a direct employee of PTCL, evidenced by his initial appointment letter, salary payments, and inclusion in PTCL's internal employee verification lists. The Commission ruled that the contractor was a 'dummy' entity and the termination was illegal. Furthermore, the termination violated mandatory procedural requirements under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, as no show-cause notice was issued nor an inquiry conducted. Consequently, the termination order was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The judgment affirms the principle that the substance of the employment relationship, rather than contractual labels, determines the employer's liability, and that statutory procedural safeguards regarding dismissal are mandatory and non-negotiable.
Questions settled- Whether an employee supplied by a contractor can be considered a direct employee of the principal company based on the conduct of the parties?
- Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice and conduct an inquiry before termination violate the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a principal employer be held liable for the reinstatement of an employee terminated by a dummy contractor?
- PTCL WORKERS ITTEHAD FEDERATION Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION MUTAHIDA WORKERS ALLIANCE2025 PLC 199 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2024-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, challenging an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding the status of the respondent trade union. The appellant, a rival federation, sought the cancellation of the respondent union, alleging it had ceased to exist following a name change. The core legal question was whether one trade union possesses the locus standi to challenge the registration or internal affairs of another trade union. The Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant lacked the standing to maintain such a challenge. Relying on established judicial precedents, the Commission affirmed that the registration of a trade union is strictly a matter between the applicant union and the Registrar of Trade Unions. Consequently, third parties, including rival trade unions and employers, have no legal standing to interfere in the registration process or internal affairs of another union. The Commission emphasized that allowing such interference would lead to unnecessary litigation and frustrate the objectives of trade union formation under the law.
Questions settled- Does a rival trade union have the locus standi to challenge the registration or status of another trade union?
- Is the registration of a trade union a matter solely between the applicant union and the Registrar of Trade Unions?
- Can an employer or a rival trade union interfere in the internal affairs of another trade union?
- KHALID MEHMOOD Versus SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LIMITED2025 PLC 168 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2024-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a grievance petition filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, challenging the dismissal of an employee from service by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a workman under relevant labour laws and whether his dismissal based on alleged absence during a period covered by a judicial stay order and supported by flawed inquiry reports was sustainable. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the employer failed to prove the employee was not a workman or that he held a managerial position, and found that the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissal were tainted by mala fides and defective inquiry procedures. The petition was accepted, the dismissal letter was set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with full back benefits. The key principles laid down include that an executive order cannot override a judicial order, and that failure to produce the inquiry officer in evidence or rely on unverified inquiry reports vitiates disciplinary proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an employee promoted to Senior Associate Engineer ceases to be a workman under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
- Can an employer treat the period covered by a judicial stay order as unauthorized absence from duty?
- Does the failure of the inquiry officer to appear in the witness box render disciplinary proceedings void?
- Whether submission of conflicting inquiry reports demonstrates mala fides on the part of the employer?
- UNITED BANK LTD. Versus JAMIL AHMED2021 PLC 144 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2020-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 48 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 against an order of the Labour Court, which had accepted the respondent's grievance petition and reinstated him without back benefits following his termination for misconduct. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent, an Officer Grade-II, fell within the definition of a "workman" to invoke labour court jurisdiction, and whether his termination for alleged negligence relating to a fraudulent bank transaction was justified. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that designation alone does not determine employment status and, based on the nature of his duties, the respondent qualified as a workman. On merits, the Commission found no illegality in the reinstatement since the employee was charged with negligence rather than direct misappropriation, and the misappropriated funds were recovered from another individual. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the designation of an employee as an Officer Grade-II automatically exclude them from the definition of a workman?
- Does the nature of duties performed determine whether an employee is a workman under labour laws?
- Can an employee be terminated for major misconduct based on alleged negligence in protecting a password without proof of direct misappropriation?
- AHMED RAZA Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES2020 PLC 218 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
- MOULA BUKHSH Versus INTERNATIONAL BISCUITS LIMITED through Manager/Occupier2011 PLC 92 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2010-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 22A(8)(g) and Section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, alleged unfair labour practice by the respondent management, specifically regarding the termination of employees and the closure of the factory. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having accepted their full legal dues following the closure of the establishment, remained entitled to reinstatement and back-benefits. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the petition was infructuous and dismissed it. The Commission reasoned that the establishment had been legally closed with permission from the Labour Court under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the assets had been sold to a third party. Furthermore, the petitioners had voluntarily accepted their full terminal dues without objection, and previous litigation regarding these issues had already attained finality. The key principle laid down is that where an establishment has been lawfully closed and employees have voluntarily accepted their full terminal dues without protest, they cannot subsequently agitate for reinstatement or back-benefits, as the underlying cause of action ceases to exist and the requested relief becomes legally impossible to grant.
Questions settled- Can employees claim reinstatement after voluntarily accepting terminal dues following the legal closure of an establishment?
- Does the closure of an establishment with permission from a Labour Court render a petition for reinstatement infructuous?
- Can an employee agitate for reinstatement if the establishment has been sold and no longer exists under the original management?
- ABDUL AZIZ BALOCH Versus ADAMJEE INSURACNE COMPANY LTD. through Managing Director2009 PLC 298 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2009-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from five identical applications filed under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, seeking to suspend retrenchment orders issued by the respondent company and to restrain it from committing unfair labour practices. The core legal question was whether interim relief in the nature of suspending a completed retrenchment order and granting status quo ante can be issued under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, when the retrenchment has already taken place. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that since the retrenchment orders had already been issued and implemented, the alleged act of unfair labour practice, if any, stood completed, making Regulation 32(2)(c)—which applies to apprehended acts—inapplicable. The Commission laid down the principle that interim relief amounting to status quo ante or reinstatement cannot be granted under Regulation 32(2)(c) by way of interim measures, as the power to direct reinstatement is consequential upon a finding of guilt in proceedings and not an ancillary interim power, leaving the aggrieved employees to seek remedies before the appropriate Labour Court.
Questions settled- Whether interim relief in the nature of status quo ante can be granted under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, after retrenchment orders have already been executed?
- Does Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 apply to acts of unfair labour practice that have already been completed or only to apprehended acts?
- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission possess the power to order interim reinstatement of an employee prior to a final determination of guilt?
- GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER WORKERS' UNION, CBA, through General Secretary Versus THE GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD2008 PLC 96 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2007-08-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by a registered trade union against the respondent company, alleging unfair labour practices, including illegal lockouts, interference in union affairs, and refusal to deduct union subscriptions. The core legal question was whether the workers listed by the union were employees of the respondent company or an independent contractor, and whether the National Industrial Relations Commission could grant interim relief in the absence of established employment status or a pending industrial dispute. The Commission held that the union failed to establish a prima facie case, as no documentary evidence proved an employer-employee relationship between the disputed workers and the respondent. The court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding employment status require the recording of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. Furthermore, the court established that interim relief under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations 1973 is preventive in nature and cannot be granted for acts already committed. Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission grant interim relief for acts of unfair labour practice that have already been committed?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the union to establish an employer-employee relationship when the employer denies it?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding employment status be adjudicated in summary proceedings without recording evidence?
- Is a contractor's workforce considered employees of the principal employer for the purpose of trade union membership?
- ALLIED BANK WORKERS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN (REGD.), CBA, ISLAMABAD Versus PRESIDENT ALLIED BANK LIMITED2008 PLC 63 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2007-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application filed by the respondent under section 45(2) and section 50(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, read with Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the dismissal of an industrial dispute petition raised by the Allied Bank Workers Federation under section 56 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question centered on whether the applicant-Federation's petition and prior conciliation steps were rendered invalid and barred due to a subsisting status quo order passed in previous proceedings, and whether the petition was liable to rejection for lack of cause of action or non-compliance with procedural requirements. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the status quo order was limited in scope to preventing the apprehension of termination and did not invalidate the statutory process of raising an industrial dispute and seeking conciliation. The Commission ruled that labour legislation is beneficial in nature and rights should not be defeated on technical grounds, thereby declining the respondent's application and directing the parties to proceed with the main case.
Questions settled- Whether an application for the adjudication of an industrial dispute under section 56 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 is barred by a prior status quo order restricted to the apprehension of worker termination?
- Does a status quo order issued during industrial proceedings invalidate subsequent statutory notices of conciliation served under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- Can an industrial dispute petition filed by a certified Collective Bargaining Agent be dismissed on technical and procedural grounds under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Whether labour legislation being beneficial in nature should be construed liberally to prevent the defeat of workers' rights on technical grounds?
- C.D.A. MAZDOOR UNION through General Secretary Versus MEMBER (ADMINISTRATION) C.D.A. COMPLEX, ISLAMABAD2008 PLC 392 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2008-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by the C.D.A. Mazdoor Union (acting as the Collective Bargaining Agent) before the National Industrial Relations Commission under section 49(4)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, challenging the management's decision to earmark funds for house building and motorcycle advances in response to demands raised by a non-C.B.A. union. The core legal question was whether bypassing the Collective Bargaining Agent and dealing with a non-C.B.A. union regarding matters of interest constitutes an unfair labour practice and violates statutory rights. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that while the management has the prerogative to initiate welfare measures, it is legally bound to deal exclusively with the Collective Bargaining Agent on collective matters and industrial disputes, and bypassing it undermines its representative character. The Commission allowed the petition, directing the management to finalize the modalities for disbursing the earmarked funds in consultation with the sitting Collective Bargaining Agent to maintain industrial peace.
Questions settled- Whether an employer can negotiate or deal with a non-C.B.A. union regarding matters of interest concerning workers?
- Can the National Industrial Relations Commission interfere when a management bypasses the Collective Bargaining Agent in collective matters?
- Does entertaining a demand from a non-C.B.A. union to the exclusion of the Collective Bargaining Agent amount to an unfair labour practice?
- How should welfare funds earmarked by management for employees be disbursed in the presence of a sitting Collective Bargaining Agent?
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN Versus PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL through General Manager2008 PLC 376 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2008-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed under section 49(4)(e) read with section 63(a)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, and Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (Procedure and Function) Regulations, 1973, alleging unfair labour practice by the respondent hotel management due to the petitioner's trade union activities and active role in upcoming referendum proceedings. The core legal question revolves around whether the routine administrative transfer of an employee who is a union office-bearer during pending referendum proceedings constitutes an act of unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the transfer of the petitioner from the laundry department to the housekeeping department was a simple administrative transfer in accordance with the terms of his initial appointment, caused no alteration to his terms and conditions of employment, and did not violate sections 20(15) or 40(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The key principle laid down is that routine transfers made due to the exigency of service that do not affect an employee's terms and conditions or hinder genuine trade union activities do not amount to unfair labour practice.
Questions settled- Does the routine transfer of a union office-bearer during pending referendum proceedings constitute an act of unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- Whether the transfer of an employee back to their original department of appointment amounts to a change in terms and conditions of employment?
- Is the permission of the Registrar of Trade Unions required for the administrative transfer of an employee involved in trade union activities where such transfer does not affect those activities?
- SME BANK LTD. STAFF UNION Versus SME BANK LTD. through Managing Director2008 PLC 341 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2008-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition filed under section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 by a Collective Bargaining Agent (C.B.A.) union against the management of SME Bank Ltd., seeking directions to allow annual increments for the year 2005 to all regular employees as a matter of right. The respondent management raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, laches, and the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to entertain the petition without an allegation of unfair labour practice. The core legal question was whether the NIRC has jurisdiction under section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 to adjudicate a petition for the enforcement of rights or redress of grievances when no element of unfair labour practice is pleaded. The Commission held that the NIRC lacks jurisdiction to determine a petition brought under section 33 by a C.B.A. union or under section 49(4)(e) if no element of unfair labour practice is pleaded, as the NIRC's powers as a Labour Court are strictly limited to cases involving unfair labour practices. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition filed under section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 when no element of unfair labour practice is pleaded?
- Can a Collective Bargaining Agent union invoke the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission to enforce individual or collective rights of workers in the absence of an allegation of unfair labour practice?
- What is the extent of the National Industrial Relations Commission's powers when exercising the functions of a Labour Court under section 50 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- MUHAMMAD JAMIL Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED, KARACHI2008 PLC 158 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2007-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition filed under Section 49(4)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, seeking interim relief against alleged unfair labour practices and threatened termination by the respondent establishment. The petitioners, contract workers and members of a trade union with a pending registration application, claimed protection against dismissal under Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question was whether general members of a trade union, whose registration is pending, are entitled to the statutory protection against dismissal, termination, or transfer afforded by Section 10 of the Ordinance. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the protection provided under Section 10 is explicitly and exclusively reserved for the 'office-bearers' of a trade union during the pendency of its registration. As the petitioners were merely members and not office-bearers, the Commission ruled they were not entitled to the claimed protection. Consequently, the application for interim relief under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.
Questions settled- Are general members of a trade union entitled to protection against dismissal under Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, during the pendency of the union's registration?
- Does the protection against termination provided by Section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, extend to contract workers who are not office-bearers of a trade union?
- Can interim relief be granted under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, to union members who do not qualify for statutory protection under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- UNILEVER EMPLOYEES FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN LABOUR WELFARE SOCIETY, KARACHI Versus REGISTRAR TRADE UNIONS, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, KASUR2008 PLC 15 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2007-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to the initiation of referendum proceedings by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Kasur, to determine a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the Walls Ice-Cream Factory unit of Unilever Pakistan Limited. The applicant, a registered Federation, argued it was the existing, functioning CBA for the entire Unilever establishment, having recently signed a settlement agreement benefiting all units, including the Kasur factory. The core legal question was whether a local referendum could be initiated for a single unit when a Federation-wide CBA already existed and was actively functioning. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that the law prohibits the existence of two CBAs within a single establishment. Finding that the applicant Federation was the duly certified and active CBA, the Commission ruled that the Registrar’s initiation of referendum proceedings was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Commission affirmed the principle that where a valid, functioning CBA exists for an establishment, a separate local referendum for a single unit is impermissible, and any challenge to the status of a CBA must be addressed through the appropriate statutory channels rather than unilateral local referendums.
Questions settled- Can a referendum for a Collective Bargaining Agent be held in a single unit of an establishment where a Federation-wide Collective Bargaining Agent is already functioning?
- Is it legally permissible to have two Collective Bargaining Agents operating within the same establishment?
- What is the appropriate legal forum for challenging the status of an existing Collective Bargaining Agent?
- KHALIQUE AHMED Versus JOHN & PHILLIPS (PAKISTAN) LTD.2008 PLC 125 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 2007-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition under section 49(4)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 along with an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations 1973 filed by the petitioners alleging unfair labour practice by the respondents, claiming they were permanent workmen deprived of legal rights and harassed during a legal strike. The respondents raised preliminary legal objections, denying any employer-employee relationship and asserting that the petitioners were engaged by an independent contractor. The core legal question concerns whether a prima facie case of unfair labour practice exists when the very existence of an employment relationship is disputed and unproven. The National Industrial Relations Commission held that when an employer explicitly denies the relationship of employer and employee, the burden of proof lies upon the claimants to establish it through prima facie documentary or oral evidence, which the petitioners failed to do. Consequently, finding no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury, the interim prohibitory order was recalled and the application for interim relief was dismissed.
Questions settled- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish an employment relationship when it is explicitly denied by the respondent establishment?
- Whether an interim prohibitory order under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations 1973 can be sustained without establishing a prima facie case of unfair labour practice?
- Is a petition under section 49(4)(e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 maintainable when the petitioners fail to produce any appointment letter or service documents to substantiate their employment?