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.

• HADAIT ALI Versus MANAGER, GOVERNMENT JALLO ROZAN FACTORY1988 PLC 582 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• UNION FOUNDRY and STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS Versus MUNIR AHMAD1988 PLC 581 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-01-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DINA1988 PLC 580 · Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SAHIWAL Versus MUHAMMAD KHALIL1988 PLC 579 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-05-16Read full judgment →
• Syed MUSAWWAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN1988 PLC 578 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• GENERAL SECRETARY, DOABA :ICE MILLS WORKERS UNION Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, PUNJAB1988 PLC 577 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• TOWN COMMITTEE, QILA DIDAR SINGH Versus MUHAMMAD AYUB1988 PLC 575 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• WADI HUSSAIN Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD, LAHORE1988 PLC 573 · Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through General1988 PLC 563 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD USMAN Versus UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI1988 PLC 562 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., BAHAWALPUR Versus MAZHAR ABBAS GARDEZI1988 PLC 560 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA Versus NAZAKAT HUSSAIN SHAH1988 PLC 559 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1988 PLC 557 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus BASHIR AHMAD1988 PLC 555 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• TOWN COMMITTEE, KHARIAN Versus REHMAT BIBI1988 PLC 554 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI Versus ASHFAQ AHMAD BAJWA1988 PLC 551 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus DISTRICT MANAGER1988 PLC 550 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE; TOBA TEK SINGH Versus YOUNAS MASIH1988 PLC 547 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
• PERSONNEL MANAGER, FLORA TEXTILES LTD., KHURIANWALA Versus MAJID1988 PLC 545 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION, MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MULTAN1988 PLC 544 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• THE PUNJAB PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Versus ATAUR REHMAN1988 PLC 525 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus HAQ NAWAZ1988 PLC 523 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• PROPRIETOR TAHIR SOAP FACTORY FAISALABAD Versus BASHIR AHMAD1988 PLC 522 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
• CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN1988 PLC 519 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-28Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1988 PLC 518 · Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• ABDUL HAKEEM Versus GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE JNANG ETC.1988 PLC 517 · Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• QAMAR ABBAS SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID G.E.(A) SOUTH, M.E.S., LAHORE1988 PLC 516 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, FAISALABAD Versus NAZIR AHMAD1988 PLC 513 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS LAHORE Versus NIAMAT ALI1988 PLC 512 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• MUZAFFAR ALI GONDAL Versus PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LIMITED1988 PLC 511 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• JAVAID AHMED Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1988 PLC 509 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1198-01-21Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR1988 PLC 507 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• HALEEMA BIBI Versus Ch. MANZOOR AHMAD, PRCPRIETOR NEWS AGENCY, BAHAWALNAGAR1988 PLC 505 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-08-21Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus ABDUL SHAKOOR1988 PLC 504 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
• SANAULLAH JAHANGIR SHEIKH Versus VICE-PRESIDENT, ZONAL OFFICE, UNITED BANK LTD., SIALKOT1988 PLC 502 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
• SADIQ MASIH Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, MIAN CHANNU1988 PLC 501 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, RAWALPINDI Versus NOOR KHAN1988 PLC 500 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
• PROJECT DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, LALAMUSA Versus NIAZ ALI1988 PLC 498 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR (FINANCE), PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD Versus ALI AHMAD1988 PLC 495 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CBDC, LAHORE DIVISION Versus KARAM DIN1988 PLC 494 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
• AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER, BAHAWALPUR Versus ABDUL HAMID1988 PLC 493 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-09Read full judgment →
• DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN Versus EJAZ AHMAD KHAN1988 PLC 492 · Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus SENIOR PERSONNEL MANAGER, F.F.C.LTD RAWALPINDI1988 PLC 490 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-14Read full judgment →
• PARAS TEXTILE MILLS LTD., BAHAWALPUR Versus Hafiz KHADIM HUSSAIN1988 PLC 487 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus ABDUL AZIZ1988 PLC 485 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE Versus QAZI ALI RAZA1988 PLC 484 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
• PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH1988 PLC 482 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SARWAR SHAKIR Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAHAWALPUR1988 PLC 481 · Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-12-05Read full judgment →
• AGRIAUTO PROGRESSIVE LABOUR UNION (C.BA.), ISLAMABAD Versus AGRIAUTO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, DEH MOUZA BARROT HUB, DISTRICT LASBELLA1993 PLC 805 · Balochistan Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
• GLOBAL PHARMACEUTIAL Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RURAL, ICT, ISLAMABAD / AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, ISLAMABAD2025 PLC 204 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27
  payment of wagesworkman definitionmanagerial capacityjurisdiction of authorityindustrial relationsmaster-servant relationshipwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which had allowed claims for outstanding wages and compensation filed by former employees of the petitioner company. The core legal question was whether individuals employed in positions such as Assistant Manager, Senior Sales Promotion Officer, and Admin Officer qualify as 'workmen' entitled to the protections and remedies provided under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Court held that the Authority lacked jurisdiction, as the nature of the respondents' duties—involving autonomy, decision-making, and administrative responsibility—did not constitute manual or clerical labor. By reading the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in conjunction with the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, the Court established that employees performing managerial or administrative functions are excluded from the definition of 'workman'. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, ruling that the Authority had no legal basis to entertain the complaints, as the proper forum for such grievances lies with the Civil Court.

  Questions settled

  • Do employees holding managerial or administrative positions qualify as 'workmen' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims filed by employees who do not perform manual or clerical labor?
  • Must the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 be considered when interpreting the scope of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• ALLIED BANK LIMITED Versus FULL BENCH NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD2025 PLC 190 · Islamabad High Court
  constitutional petitionNational Industrial Relations Commissionprocedural irregularitycurable defectpower of attorneysigning of pleadingsfair trialremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by Allied Bank Limited challenging an order of the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The NIRC had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the technical ground that it had been signed by only one attorney rather than two, without adjudicating the appeal on its merits. The core legal question was whether a procedural irregularity concerning the number of authorized signatories on an appeal memo renders it incurably defective, justifying outright dismissal without giving an opportunity for rectification. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case to the NIRC for a decision on merits. The Court held that defects in signing or verifying pleadings are curable procedural irregularities that do not go to the root of jurisdiction. Quasi-judicial bodies must advance substantial justice rather than defeating substantive rights and fair trial guarantees on hyper-technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a defect in the signing or verification of a memorandum of appeal affect the jurisdiction of the forum or the merits of the case?
  • Can a court or quasi-judicial tribunal dismiss an appeal solely for having fewer authorized signatories than required without first providing an opportunity to rectify the defect?
  • Does the dismissal of an appeal on a purely hyper-technical procedural ground violate the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the absence of formal authorization or board resolution for a person executing pleadings on behalf of a corporation be subsequently cured or ratified?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LTD. Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD2025 PLC 176 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29
  Collective Bargaining AgentIndustrial Relations Act 2012Voters ListTrade UnionReferendumNIRCStatutory Interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the National Industrial Relations Commission's (NIRC) decision to treat the employer's list of workmen as the final voters' list for a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) election without verifying the lists of union members. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could bypass the statutory requirement to verify union membership lists under Section 19(3) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, by relying solely on the employer's list provided under Section 19(4). The Court held that the impugned orders were unlawful. It determined that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 establishes a distinct scheme where only members of contesting trade unions are eligible voters for CBA elections. Consequently, the Registrar must verify the lists submitted by trade unions against the employer's list to compile a valid voters' list under Section 19(5). The Court clarified that previous jurisprudence under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is distinguishable due to the current Act's specific penal and procedural requirements regarding union registration and membership. The matter was remanded for a fresh electoral process in accordance with the statutory framework.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Unions declare an employer's list of workmen as the final voters' list for a Collective Bargaining Agent election without verifying the lists of members submitted by contesting trade unions?
  • Are only members of contesting trade unions eligible to vote in an election for a Collective Bargaining Agent under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 impose a mandatory requirement for contesting trade unions to submit a list of their members to the Registrar for the purpose of compiling a voters' list?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. IFFAT NAWAZ Versus THE BANK OF KHYBER through Managing Director2025 PLC 141 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-21
  reinstatementmisconducthabitual negligenceremoval from serviceproportionality of punishmentbank employeeNIRCwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Officer Grade-III at the Bank of Khyber, challenged the decisions of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which upheld her removal from service following a bank financial fraud involving 28 unauthorized transactions. The petitioner argued that her account password had been hacked by a co-accused colleague who fully confessed to committing the embezzlement independently, and that the inquiry committee merely found her guilty of negligence rather than active participation or fraud. The Islamabad High Court examined whether a single instance of negligence or neglect of work could justify the major penalty of removal from service under Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. Allowing the writ petition, the Court held that under Standing Order 15(3)(i), negligence or neglect of work must be of a habitual nature to constitute actionable misconduct. An isolated act of negligence, without evidence of bad faith, willful collusion, or habitual conduct, cannot warrant the extreme punishment of termination. The Court set aside the NIRC's orders and reinstated the petitioner with full back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single instance of negligence constitute misconduct under Standing Order 15(3)(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Is the major penalty of removal from service permissible where an employee is found guilty of negligence rather than active fraud or embezzlement?
  • Must negligence or neglect of work be habitual in nature to justify dismissal from service under employment laws?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAMS UL ISLAM Versus The GOVERNOR, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN2021 PLC 184 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-02-18
  voluntary golden handshake schemeretirement benefitspensionary benefitsexecution of supreme court judgmentleave encashmentpay compensationstate bank of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a writ petition filed under Article 187(2) of the Constitution seeking the implementation of a judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the recalculation and payment of retirement and pensionary benefits of an employee of the State Bank of Pakistan who opted for the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme. The core legal question is whether the State Bank of Pakistan could lawfully withhold fifty percent of the petitioner's pay compensation and leave encashment under the guise of pension commutation provisions in the scheme despite a clear direction from the Supreme Court to calculate and pay all retirement benefits based on the last pay drawn treating the retirement date as 15.12.1997. The court held that pay compensation and leave encashment do not form part of the pension subject to fifty percent commutation and that the State Bank of Pakistan was obligated to pay the full amounts. The petition was allowed, and the State Bank of Pakistan was directed to pay the remaining fifty percent of the pay compensation and leave encashment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can enforce a judgment of the Supreme Court under Article 187(2) of the Constitution?
  • Can the State Bank of Pakistan restrict pay compensation and leave encashment to fifty percent under the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme based on pension commutation rules?
  • How should retirement and pensionary benefits be calculated for an employee who remained in service after opting for the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. NAZIA FAZAL Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION2020 PLC 233 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-05
  grievance petitionlimitation periodindustrial relationswrongful dismissalworkmanNIRCservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, challenged the dismissal of her grievance petition by the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) and its Full Bench. The primary legal question was whether the grievance petition filed under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was time-barred under Section 33(4), and whether the period spent prosecuting a parallel civil suit could be excluded from the limitation period. The Court held that the grievance petition was clearly time-barred, as the petitioner failed to file it within the statutory sixty-day period following the rejection of her grievance notice. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea to exclude the time spent in civil litigation, finding her explanation regarding the delayed discovery of her employment status implausible. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that tribunals must consider limitation issues regardless of whether they are raised by parties. While upholding the dismissal of the grievance petition on limitation grounds, the Court set aside the N.I.R.C.'s order requiring the petitioner to return her past salary, as such relief was neither sought nor justified by the dismissal order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court or tribunal required to consider the question of limitation even if it is not raised by the parties?
  • Can the time spent prosecuting a civil suit be excluded from the limitation period for filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Act 2012?
  • Does a tribunal have the authority to order the return of salary in a grievance petition where such relief was not requested and not part of the original dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK Versus MUHAMMAD TARIQ2020 PLC 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-03-16
  civil revisionrejection of plaintrecovery suitretirement benefitsdisciplinary proceedingspension and gratuity regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, filed a civil revision petition impugning the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the respondent's application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was allowed and the petitioner's suit for recovery of money was rejected. The core legal question was whether the petitioner bank could institute a recovery suit against its retired employee after having failed to effect recovery or complete disciplinary proceedings prior to or upon his retirement, and having paid him all retirement benefits without deduction. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner permitted the respondent to retire and receive all retirement benefits without completing disciplinary proceedings or deducting the alleged loss in violation of its regulations, the suit was rightly rejected. The court laid down the principle that an employer cannot bypass its own internal service and pension regulations to initiate a civil recovery suit against a retired employee when it permitted retirement without finalizing pending disciplinary actions or deductions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank can institute a suit for recovery against a retired employee after releasing all retirement benefits without deduction?
  • Can an employer permit an employee to proceed on retirement while disciplinary proceedings or show cause notices remain pending?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 stand when the plaintiff fails to establish a valid cause of action due to its own administrative omissions?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN MOBILE COMMUNICATION LIMITED Versus FULL BENCH N.I.R.C2019 PLC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-08
  termination of serviceworkmanstanding ordersindustrial relationsback benefitswrongful terminationN.I.R.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.), which set aside the termination of respondent No.3, a Transport Assistant, and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions were whether the termination letter stating "services are no longer required" satisfied the statutory requirement to explicitly state reasons for termination, whether an employer could contract out of statutory protections, and whether the employee qualified as a "workman." The Court held that the termination was unlawful because the employer failed to provide explicit, sustainable reasons in writing as mandated by Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that beneficial statutory provisions cannot be overridden by private employment contracts. It also determined that the respondent, whose duties involved manual work, was a "workman" regardless of his designation. The Court upheld the N.I.R.C.'s jurisdiction and dismissed the petition, establishing that termination orders must clearly articulate valid, justiciable reasons to comply with the 1968 Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the phrase 'services are no longer required' in a termination letter satisfy the requirement to explicitly state reasons under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer and employee contract out of the beneficial provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • What criteria determine whether an employee is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the N.I.R.C. have the authority to requisition proceedings from a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  Read full judgment →
• ALL PAKISTAN SRBC WORKERS UNION Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION2015 PLC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-11
  trade union registrationdefinition of workmanlocus standiindustrial relationsrival trade unionNational Industrial Relations Commissionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a registered trade union challenging the concurrent orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission authorities registering a rival trade union representing T.V. Engineers of Shalimar Recording and Broadcasting Company Limited. The core legal questions involved whether T.V. Engineers fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and whether an existing trade union has the locus standi to object to or challenge the registration of another trade union. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the members of the respondent union were indeed workmen as their primary duties were not managerial or administrative. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that the registration of a trade union is strictly a matter between the applicant union and the Registrar, and neither the employer nor an existing rival trade union has any locus standi under the scheme of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to intervene in registration proceedings or file an appeal against an order of registration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether T.V. Engineers employed in an establishment fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Does an existing registered trade union have the locus standi to object to the registration of a rival trade union before the Registrar?
  • Can an existing trade union maintain an appeal against the registration of another trade union under Section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • What is the proper test to determine whether an employee qualifies as a workman under labor laws?
  Read full judgment →
• ABID HUSSAIN JADOON Versus DAILY NAWA-E-WAQT, ISLAMABAD2024 PLC 179 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2023-11-16
  contempt of courtreinstatementexecution petitionnewspaper employeesinterim reliefwage board award
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee, filed a contempt petition against the respondent management for failing to comply with previous interim orders of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees (ITNE) regarding his reinstatement and payment of dues following his termination. The respondent argued that the main case had already been adjudicated, a final judgment was passed, and the decretal amount had been fully paid through a separate execution petition, rendering the contempt application moot. The Tribunal observed that while the petitioner had obtained interim orders for reinstatement through contempt proceedings, such relief was legally impermissible in contempt jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that contempt proceedings are strictly between the court and the contemnor to address non-compliance, and a court cannot order the reinstatement of an employee within such proceedings. Furthermore, noting that the underlying dispute regarding the decretal amount had been satisfied through the execution process, the Tribunal dismissed the contempt application, emphasizing that courts must decide disputes based on established facts rather than conjectures.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the reinstatement of an employee within contempt proceedings?
  • Is a contempt petition maintainable when the underlying decretal amount has been satisfied through execution proceedings?
  • What is the scope of a court's power in contempt proceedings regarding the relief granted to a petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IDREES ABBASI Versus The NEWS PUBLICATIONS (PVT.) LIMITED, RAWALPINDI2024 PLC 155 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2022-12-30
  newspaper employeeemployer-employee relationshipoutsourcingjurisdiction of tribunalcontrol testintegration testsham contractpiercing the corporate veil
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the respondent establishment under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the jurisdiction of the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees. The respondent contended that the applicant was not its employee but was instead engaged by an outsourced contractor, thereby denying the Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to determine the employer-employee relationship when the establishment claims the worker was employed by a third-party contractor. The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that it retains jurisdiction to determine the true nature of the employment relationship. Relying on the "control" and "integration" tests, the Tribunal held that outsourcing permanent work does not automatically sever the employer-employee relationship. It established that the Tribunal may pierce the corporate veil to ascertain if outsourcing is a sham designed to deprive workers of their rights. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed its authority to adjudicate claims involving workers engaged through contractors who perform duties essential to the newspaper establishment's operations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Implementation Tribunal for Newspaper Employees have jurisdiction to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship when the employer denies it?
  • Can an employer avoid liability under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973 by outsourcing permanent work to a third-party contractor?
  • Does the definition of 'newspaper employee' under the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act 1973 include workers whose services have been terminated?
  • Is the 'control test' the sole criterion for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the context of outsourced labor?
  Read full judgment →
• State Versus DAILY JINNAH, ISLAMABAD2024 PLC 128 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees · 2023-11-07
  newspaper employeesdeclarationnon-complianceadjournmentsuspension from central media listtribunal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the failure of the respondent management of Daily Jinnah, Islamabad, to submit a required declaration despite numerous opportunities and adjournments granted by the Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees. The core legal question involves the consequences of non-compliance with statutory directions regarding the filing of declarations under newspaper employee laws. The Tribunal held that the respondent's repeated failure and requests for adjournments demonstrated deliberate delaying tactics to avoid compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the relevant federal and provincial authorities to immediately suspend the name of Daily Jinnah, Islamabad, from the Central Media List until further orders. The key principle laid down is that administrative tribunals possess the authority to issue consequential directions, including suspension from government media lists, to enforce compliance with mandatory statutory filing requirements.

  Questions settled

  • What action can the Tribunal take when a respondent repeatedly fails to submit a mandatory declaration?
  • Whether an administrative tribunal can direct the suspension of a newspaper from the Central Media List for non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• AMJAD ALI KHAN Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DAILY MASHRIQ, PESHAWAR2008 PLC 368 · Implementation Tribunal For Newspaper Employees
  newspaper employeeswage board awardprivatizationgolden handshakemetropolitan categoryregional categoryback-benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions filed by newspaper employees seeking salary payments based on the Metropolitan "A" category under the relevant Wage Board Award, following the privatization and relocation of the newspaper's publication to Peshawar. The core legal question is whether an establishment's category changes upon privatization and shift in publication location, and whether employees who accepted golden handshake benefits can claim previous terms. The Tribunal held that upon privatization and receipt of terminal benefits, previous service ends, and the establishment's category is determined by its new place of publication under the Wage Board Award. The Tribunal concluded that Peshawar falls under Regional "A" category and subsequent publication of an edition from Islamabad does not alter the category of the parent newspaper. The petitions were dismissed regarding the higher wage category claim, but the respondent was directed to clear outstanding dues calculated under the Regional "A" category.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in the ownership or proprietorship of a newspaper establishment through privatization affect the category in which the establishment is placed under the Wage Board Award?
  • Whether the publication of a new edition of a newspaper from a different city alters the category of the parent newspaper under the Wage Board Award?
  • Can employees who accepted golden handshake benefits upon privatization derive benefits from their previous service?
  • Does the payment of higher emoluments to certain employees on a contractual basis amount to actionable discrimination regarding wage categories?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. SHAMIM RAZA Versus HABIB BANK LTD.2025 PLC 216 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-02-14
  master and servantcivil suit maintainabilityservice reinstatementbank employee terminationjurisdiction of civil courtemployment rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The captioned appeals arose from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge Mirpur, whereby a civil suit filed by the plaintiff, an employee of Habib Bank Ltd., was decreed, reinstating her to service with all benefits following her termination over allegations of financial irregularities, fake loans, and forged signatures. The plaintiff had challenged her suspension and termination through a civil suit, whereas the bank contested the maintainability of the suit and the findings of the trial court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a civil suit against a private bank by an employee, the applicability of the master and servant rule, and whether the trial court's reinstatement of the employee with benefits was legally sustainable. The High Court dismissed both appeals, holding that civil courts possess ultimate jurisdiction to try suits of a civil nature where no alternative statutory remedy like a writ lies against private entities, and that modern legal trends discard strict applications of the master and servant rule in favor of employee safeguards. The key principle laid down is that a civil suit is maintainable for the enforcement of civil and employment rights against private institutions where other remedies are barred or unavailable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit is maintainable by an employee against a private bank for wrongful termination of service?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to try suits of a civil nature concerning employment disputes where writ remedies against private bodies are unavailable?
  • Whether the strict concept of master and servant is applicable to commercial and industrial organizations under modern legal trends?
  • Is an employee entitled to emoluments and benefits during the period of suspension upon being reinstated into service?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK through General Manager Circle Office, Muzaffarabad2008 PLC 350 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2005-03-29
  grievance noticeindustrial disputeservice of notice through advocateLabour Courtrejection of petitionAzad Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Relations Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Labour Court rejecting a petition filed under section 30 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974. The core legal question is whether a pre-litigation grievance notice required under the law can be legally served by a worker through an Advocate, or if it must be served by the worker himself, through a Shop Steward, or via a Trade Union. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory word 'himself' excludes outside agents and advocates, thereby rendering a grievance notice served through an advocate invalid and the consequential petition not maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory grievance notice must be served strictly in the manner prescribed by the statute, precluding the intervention of legal practitioners at that stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a grievance notice under section 30 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974 can be validly served through an Advocate?
  • Does the word 'himself' in the relevant industrial relations legislation include an agent or legal practitioner for the purpose of serving a grievance notice?
  • Can a labour petition be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a mandatory grievance notice is defectively served?
  Read full judgment →
• SAMINAH SULAIMAN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Secretariat Gilgit2025 PLC 1065 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-03-20
  writ of mandamusservice matterpublic employmentadvertisement criteriaviolation of terms and conditionsmerit listfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 7 as an Elementary School Teacher (EST-14) and seeking the appointment of the petitioner, who stood second on the merit list. The core legal question was whether the respondents could deviate from the selection criteria and marking scheme stipulated in the advertisement. The Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court held that the respondents acted in clear violation of the advertised terms and conditions by failing to apply the prescribed weightage for academics and interviews, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that authorities are strictly bound to follow the terms, conditions, and criteria specified in public advertisements for recruitment, and any arbitrary deviation renders the selection process unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public authorities are bound to strictly follow the selection criteria and marking scheme provided in a job advertisement?
  • Does deviation from the advertised recruitment rules by an authority amount to the infringement of candidates' fundamental rights?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against the violation of recruitment terms and conditions by government departments in Gilgit-Baltistan?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIRUDDIN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Secretariat, Gilgit2025 PLC 1058 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-03-17
  writ of mandamusmerit-based appointmentpublic employmentGilgit-Baltistan Orderadministrative discretionright to employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to disclose the final merit list and issue an appointment letter for the post of Primary/Middle School Teacher (BS-14) in Tehsil Gupis. The petitioner, having qualified the written test and interview, secured the first position at the Tehsil level after the disqualification of the initial topper. The respondents verbally disqualified the petitioner, citing his residency in a 'hard area' where no vacancies existed. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the petitioner had indeed secured the highest marks (69.2/100) in the final merit list. The Court held that as the topper at the Tehsil level, the petitioner possessed a substantial right to employment. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, directing the respondents to adjust and appoint the petitioner to the vacant Primary/Middle School Teacher position, affirming that a distinguished candidate should not be denied an opportunity to serve the Department of Education based on administrative misconceptions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate who tops the merit list at the Tehsil level is entitled to appointment despite residency in a 'hard area' where no specific vacancy exists?
  • Can a public authority deny appointment to a qualified candidate based on verbal disqualification regarding residency policy?
  • Does a candidate who secures the highest marks in a recruitment process have a substantial right to be appointed against an available vacant post?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL NAHEED Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION1990 PLC 545 · Federal Labour Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• RIZWAN-UL-HAQ Versus Messrs PROGRESSIVE PAPERS Ltd.1985 PLC 1051 · Federal Labour Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
• CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD., JARANWALA Versus DIRECTOR, SOCIAL SECURITY, FAISALABAD1988 PLC 548 · Punjab Employees Social Security Institution · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• ITTEHAD CHEMICALS/PESTICIDES LIMITED KALA SHAH KAKU Versus THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, LOCAL OFFICE, SHAHDARA1988 PLC 508 · Punjab Employees Social Security InstitutionRead full judgment →
• 1986 PLC 9891986 PLC 989 · Employees Old-Age Benefits InstitutionRead full judgment →
• ABDUL MANNAN Versus SIRAJ KHAN, PROPRIETOR, "STUDENT TAILOR" DACCA1971 PLC 74 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
• FAZAR ALI Versus MESSRS EAST PAKISTAN ENTERPRISE LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 458 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-23Read full judgment →
• T. M. NOORER RAHMAN JAMALI Versus MESSRS FACTO LIMITED, DACCA1971 PLC 456 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-23Read full judgment →
• MD. NIZAMUDDIN Versus MESSRs DELTA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 40 · East Pakistan Labour CourtRead full judgment →
• AHMED H. SPED Versus MANAGER, PARSONS CORPORATION, CHITTAGONG.1971 PLC 34 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-03-25Read full judgment →
• BAZALAHMED Versus MBSSRS RAHMANIA ELECTRIC STORES, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 27 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-03-25Read full judgment →
• ABDUR RAHMAN Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, NORTH BENGAL SUGAR MILLS Co. LTD. (EPIDC),1971 PLC 232 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-14Read full judgment →
• S. ABBAS QULI Versus MESSRS HASAN MOVIES LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 20 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-06-10Read full judgment →
• JALAL AHMED Versus ALI JAN JUTE MILLS LTD., DACCA1971 PLC 170 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-10-02Read full judgment →
• MD. ABDUL GANI MOLLAH Versus MESSRS NEW ERA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC 119 · East Pakistan Labour CourtRead full judgment →
• KARNAPHULI RAYON, & CHEMICALS LTD., CHITTAGONG Versus KARNAPHULI RAYON & CHEMICAL WORKERS' UNION1971 PLC 105 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-07-18Read full judgment →
• 1986 PLC 7441986 PLC 744 · Commissioner For Workmen's CompensationRead full judgment →
• 1986 PLC 591986 PLC 59 · Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation · 1985-09-29Read full judgment →
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus JALALUDDIN2025 PLC 88 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-16
  permanent workmanoutsourcingsham contractlabor rightsindustrial relationscontrol testconstitutional petitionNIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging NIRC orders that declared outsourced janitorial staff as permanent workmen. The core legal question was whether employees hired through third-party contractors, but working under the Bank's direct supervision for years without breaks, qualify as permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Court held that the respondents were indeed permanent workmen, dismissing the Bank's petitions. The ratio established that while an employer may outsource, such arrangements cannot be used as a sham device to circumvent labor laws or deprive workers of their fundamental rights. Applying the "control" and "integration" tests, the Court determined that the Bank, as the principal employer exercising supervision and control, was liable. The judgment affirms that where outsourcing is a mere mechanism to exploit labor and avoid statutory obligations, the court will look behind the contract to recognize the actual employment relationship, ensuring social and economic justice as guaranteed by the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer use outsourcing arrangements to circumvent the statutory rights of workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • What criteria determine whether an outsourced worker qualifies as a permanent workman of the principal employer?
  • Does the failure of an employer to contest an application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act 1908 preclude them from challenging the condonation later?
  • Is the control test the sole factor in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship in cases of outsourced labor?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHIR SHAH Versus CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Director General Karachi2025 PLC 155 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-10
  regularization of servicescivil aviation authorityindustrial relations actcontract employeesconstitutional petitionvested rightpolicy matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders passed by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which had held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was not applicable to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and dismissed the petitioners' grievance petition for regularization. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, appointed on a contract basis under a government package, had a vested or enforceable legal right to regularisation of their services in the absence of any statutory backing or governing policy. The Balochistan High Court held that in the absence of a statutory basis, enactment, or formal policy providing for regularization, the court cannot compel the executive or statutory bodies to regularize contract employees or formulate policies for that purpose. The court established the key principle that regularization of contractual employees requires a clear statutory or policy basis, and courts cannot grant regularization solely on the ground of length of service or the principle of parity in the absence of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees have an automatic vested right to regularization in the absence of statutory backing or policy?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to direct the executive or a statutory institution to frame a regularization policy?
  • Whether the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is applicable to the employees of the Civil Aviation Authority?
  • Does Article 25 of the Constitution envisage negative equality in matters of regularization of public employment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed ZAHOOR SHAH Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER2024 PLC 125 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• HABIBULLAH COASTAL POWER EMPLOYEES UNION QUETTA Versus HABIBULLAH COASTAL POWER COMPANY2021 PLC 250 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-21
  trans-provincial establishmentlabour court jurisdictionNational Industrial Relations CommissionIndustrial Relations Act 2012Balochistan Industrial Relations Act 2010constitutional jurisdictiontrade union registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdictional conflict between provincial Labour Courts and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding labour disputes involving the Habibullah Coastal Power Company. The core legal question was whether the respondent company, having branches in multiple provinces, constitutes a trans-provincial establishment, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the provincial Labour Court in favor of the NIRC. The Court held that the company, by virtue of operating branches in Islamabad and Karachi in addition to its Quetta office, falls within the definition of a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act 2012. Consequently, the NIRC possesses exclusive jurisdiction over the company's labour affairs. The Court affirmed that jurisdiction is determined by the employer's status rather than the nature of the dispute. Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional petitions seeking the cancellation of trade union registrations are premature where statutory remedies under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act 2010 and the Industrial Relations Act 2012 remain available. The Court emphasized that federal law prevails over provincial law under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does an establishment with branches in more than one province fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission?
  • Is the jurisdiction of a Labour Court determined by the nature of the industrial dispute or the status of the employer?
  • Can a party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to cancel a trade union registration when statutory remedies are available?
  • Does the Industrial Relations Act 2012 have overriding effect over provincial labour laws regarding trans-provincial establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAHEEN AIRPORT SERVICES Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION2021 PLC 100 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-07
  review petitioncharitable institutionindustrial relationslabour lawper incuriamstatutory immunityprofit-making entity
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed by Shaheen Airport Services seeking a review of a previous judgment, specifically challenging the finding that the petitioner was not a charitable organization and thus subject to the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013. The petitioner argued that the previous findings were per incuriam, asserting that the statutes explicitly exclude charitable organizations from their operation and that the High Court's reliance on the definition of 'industry' from the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was legally flawed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a charitable institution entitled to immunity from labour laws. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which determined that Shaheen Airport Services operates for profit and is not a charitable institution, remained valid. The Court affirmed that the mere fact that profits are directed to a charitable foundation does not confer charitable status upon the commercial entity itself. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petitions, maintaining that the petitioner is not entitled to the statutory immunity claimed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a commercial entity that directs its profits to a charitable foundation qualify as a charitable institution under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Can an entity claim immunity from the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 on the grounds of being a charitable organization if its commercial status has been concurrently determined otherwise?
  • Is the determination of an establishment's status as a 'charitable institution' a question of fact that can be revisited in review proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, QESCO Versus SHER JAN2020 PLC 239 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-11-29
  workman statuslabour court jurisdictionwithdrawal of promotionnatural justiceQESCOWAPDA Actconstitutional petitiongrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO) challenging the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether QESCO employees, who had been promoted and subsequently demoted without notice, qualified as 'workmen' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, thereby invoking the Labour Court's jurisdiction, or whether they were civil servants under the WAPDA Act, 1958. The Court held that the employees were 'workmen' because their duties were manual or clerical in nature, and QESCO lacked distinct statutory rules. Consequently, the Labour Court possessed jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court held that the unilateral withdrawal of the employees' promotion orders without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing violated the principles of natural justice, as a vested right had accrued upon their promotion. The judgment affirms that the nature of an employee's duties, rather than the employer's status alone, is the decisive factor in determining their classification as a 'workman' entitled to seek redress before a Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nature of duties performed by an employee determine their status as a 'workman' under the Balochistan Industrial Relations Act 2010?
  • Can a public limited company withdraw an employee's promotion order without issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry?
  • Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain grievance petitions of employees of a company that has not framed its own statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Versus KHUDA BAKHSH2020 PLC 122 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-14
  service lawdate of birth correctionservice bookgrievance petitionlabour lawbelated claimretirement age
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgments of the 1st Labour Court, Balochistan, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had allowed an employee's grievance petition seeking the rectification of his date of birth in his service book. The core legal question was whether an employee, after over thirty-three years of service, is entitled to seek an alteration of his recorded date of birth shortly before retirement. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in allowing the petition. The Court emphasized that the date of birth recorded at the time of joining service is final and cannot be altered, particularly after a significant delay. Citing government policy, the Court held that allowing such changes at the verge of retirement is impermissible and lacks legal justification. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, declaring them void, and dismissed the employee's grievance petition, establishing the principle that entries regarding age or date of birth in a service book are conclusive and cannot be challenged or modified after an inordinate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee seek the alteration of their date of birth in a service book after an inordinate delay of over thirty years?
  • Is the date of birth recorded in a service book at the time of joining service considered final and unalterable?
  • Does a Labour Court have the authority to order the correction of a date of birth in a service book near the time of an employee's retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY, LTD. Versus DIN MUHAMMAD2019 PLC 30 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-07-16
  permanent workmanlabour lawsprincipal employer liabilitycontract workergrievance petitionindustrial disputestanding orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan, which reversed a Labour Court's decision and granted relief to the respondent, a former security guard. The core legal question was whether the respondent qualified as a permanent workman under labour laws and whether the petitioner, as the principal employer, remained liable for outstanding salary dues despite claims that the respondent’s services were transferred to a private contractor. The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent, having served continuously for over nine months, attained the status of a permanent workman. The court held that a principal employer cannot evade statutory liability for an employee's dues by merely asserting a transfer to a contractor, particularly when the employer retains control and the contract period has expired. The court affirmed that under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the principal employer remains responsible for the worker's entitlements, reinforcing the protection of workers against arbitrary displacement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a worker who has served continuously for more than nine months qualify as a permanent workman under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can a principal employer evade liability for a worker's outstanding dues by claiming the worker was transferred to a contractor?
  • Does the definition of an industrial establishment under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 include the establishment of a contractor?
  Read full judgment →
• CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER QESCO Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL2019 PLC 11 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-23
  son quotatermination of serviceultra vireslabour courtconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from judgments of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan, which set aside the termination of services of the respondents (employees) and restored them to their positions as Assistant Line Men in QESCO. The employees had been appointed on son quota after completing formal procedures, but their services were later terminated based on an alleged concealment of the fact that their brothers were already in service of the company, allegedly violating clause 2(q) of their appointment letters requiring an affidavit to that effect. The core legal question was whether the employer could validly terminate the services of employees on the basis of a condition inserted under union pressure that lacked statutory backing and was contrary to merit-based appointments. The Balochistan High Court held that the condition in clause 2(q), introduced via union pressure and not part of the original advertisement or statutory rules, was ultra vires and void ab initio, and that the termination orders were tainted with mala fide. The Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the concurrent findings of the labour forums.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employment condition introduced under union pressure without statutory backing is legally enforceable?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction without showing jurisdictional error?
  • Whether services of employees appointed on merit through proper selection procedures can be terminated on the ground of an unverified policy regarding family members in service?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, LIVESTOCK DEPARTMENT Versus LIVESTOCK EMPLOYEES' UNION, BALOCHISTAN1993 PLC 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-07-14Read full judgment →
• THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, P. W. R., QUETTA Versus MIAN MUHAMMAD Muftikharuddin , Respondent in person1973 PLC 337 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-04-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus CHIEF CONSERVATOR, FOREST DEPARTMENT, MULTAN REGION, MULTAN1974 PLC 186 · Bahawalpur · 1973-12-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS ZAHID Versus EHSANUL HAQ PARACHA1988 PLC 171 · Authority under Payment of Wages Act · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• SHER ASFANDYAR KHAN Versus NEELOFAR SHAH2025 CLD 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-08
  corporate oppressionmismanagementsummary procedureshare transfertrust over sharessecondary evidenceforgery allegationsframing of issues
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeals brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a High Court judgment upholding a Company Judge's summary order under Sections 290 and 291 of the Companies Ordinance 1984. The dispute concerned ownership and corporate control of a private company following a contested share transfer, which the respondents alleged violated Shareholders' Agreements and created a trust over shares, while the appellants contended the agreements and board minutes were forged. The core legal issues centered on whether summary proceedings under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 were appropriate for resolving complex factual disputes involving forgery allegations without framing issues and recording evidence; whether a trust over shares was legally tenable under Section 148; and whether secondary evidence was properly admitted under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. By a majority of 2 to 1, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments. The Court held that complex allegations of forgery require regular evidentiary trial safeguards, that Section 148 bars company recognition of trusts over shares, and that secondary evidence cannot be admitted without fulfilling Article 76 requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Company Judge resolve complex factual disputes involving allegations of forgery through summary procedure under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 without framing issues and recording evidence?
  • Is a claim of trust over corporate shares legally tenable in light of the statutory bar under Section 148 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 (and Section 121 of the Companies Act 2017)?
  • Can secondary evidence of disputed documents be admitted in company court proceedings without satisfying the conditions prescribed under Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• FRONTIER HOLDINGS LIMITED through Chief Executive, Islamabad Versus PETROLEUM EXPLORATION PVT. LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer, Islamabad2025 CLD 1810 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-29Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Chief Controller of Purchase, Pakistan Railways, Lahore Versus CRRC ZIYANG CO. LIMITED, LAHORE2025 CLD 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-29
  Arbitration awardObjections to arbitration awardJudicial intervention in arbitrationFraming of issuesRecording of evidenceArbitration Act 1940Limited judicial reviewArbitrator's misconductFinality of award
  Summary & questions settled

  The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed a petition challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside a Civil Judge's order to frame issues and record evidence in proceedings concerning objections to an arbitration award. The core legal question was whether a civil court, while deciding objections to an arbitration award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, should frame issues and record evidence. The Supreme Court held that courts generally exercise limited jurisdiction in such matters and should avoid framing issues and recording evidence unless absolutely necessary, as this undermines the objectives of efficiency, finality, and minimal judicial intervention inherent in arbitration. The Court affirmed that judicial interference is permissible only on narrow grounds such as jurisdictional error, proven misconduct, or a patent legal mistake visible on the face of the record, not through a re-evaluation of facts or a full trial. The High Court's decision to remand the case for a decision based on the available record was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Should a civil court frame issues and record evidence when deciding objections to an arbitration award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • What is the scope of judicial intervention in arbitration matters under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can courts re-appraise evidence or conduct a de novo evaluation of an arbitration award?
  • Are arbitrators bound by the strict procedures of the Code of Civil Procedure and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  • What are the permissible grounds for a court to set aside an arbitration award?
  Read full judgment →