Summary: Background: The appellant contested the rejection of his nomination papers by the Returning Officer for the PP-77 Sargodha-VI constituency in the 2023 provincial elections. The rejection was based on prior rulings involving the appellant’s disqualification due to a fabricated graduation certificate during the 2008 general elections. The Election Tribunal, in 2010, declared the appellant's election void due to the fabricated certificate. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, and criminal charges were brought against the appellant. However, the appellant was acquitted by the Lahore High Court in 2019. The appellant argued that since no declaration of disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution had been made, he was not barred from contesting the 2023 elections. -----Issues: 1- Whether the rejection of the appellant's nomination papers was justified, considering the previous court rulings on his disqualification. 2- Whether the appellant is disqualified under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution for life, based on the findings of the Election Tribunal in 2010. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that: There was no specific declaration made against the appellant under Article 62(1)(f) of the Constitution by the Election Tribunal or the Supreme Court. The ruling in 2010 only addressed the fabrication of the graduation certificate without making a specific determination on the appellant's honesty or integrity under Article 62(1)(f). The appellant's acquittal in 2019 by the Lahore High Court removed any remaining allegations of corrupt practices or forgery. As no lifetime disqualification had been declared, the rejection of the nomination papers was unjustified. The appeal was accepted, and the Returning Officer was directed to include the appellant’s name in the list of eligible candidates. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hanif Abbasi Vs. Jahangir Khan Tareen (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 114) Imran Ahmad Khan Vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 692) Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi Vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 265) Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad Tarar (2016 SCMR 01) Sardar Yar Muhammad Rind Vs. Election Tribunal Balochistan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 137) Allah Dino Khan Bhayo Vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 591) Roshan Ali Buriro Vs. Syed Murad Ali Shah (2019 SCMR 1939) Sami Ullah Baloch Vs. Abdul Karim Nousherwani (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 405) Ishaq Khan Khakwani Vs. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 275) Muhammad Nawaz Khan Vs. Election Commission of Pakistan (2018 CLC 784)

Summary: The word "may", used in Section 62(2) of the Elections Act, 2017, manifests that it is not mandatory for the proposer or seconder to appear before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers and therefore, the nomination papers could not rejected on the sole ground of their absence. However, if presence of the proposer or seconder is specifically required by the Returning Officer for scrutiny of nomination papers then their absence could be fatal and nomination papers could be rejected.

Summary: The cutoff date for clearing loan, government dues and utility expense under Article 63(1)(n) & (o) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is the last date for filing of nomination papers. Further, non-obstante clause of Section 62(10) of the Elections Act, 2017 shall only be attracted where a candidate can show that he/she was unaware of said liability against him/her at the time of filing of his/her nomination papers.

Summary: It is well-settled that in absence of codal formalities i.e. advertisement, the constitution of Selection Committee, test and interview, before filling up the subject post, this Court cannot come to rescue and entertain the grievance of the petitioner as made by him in the prayer under the constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: Appeals Dismissed---The appeals arise from a lawsuit in which the respondent filed a suit for recovery of unpaid salary for the unexpired period of his contract, along with additional damages. The appeals challenge various portions of the judgment and decree issued by a learned Single Judge in this lawsuit. The appellant failed to provide a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal. The court rules that the requirement to attach a copy of the decree is mandatory, and the appellant's failure to do so renders the appeal invalidly presented. The court analyzes the timeline of events and concludes that the appellant's attempt to file the decree after the appeal was already filed was not acceptable. The court examines the claim for damages due to breach of contract. The appellant (employer) attempted to terminate the respondent's (employee) contract with 30 days' notice but argued that it was due to restructuring. The court examines the nature of the breach and compensation under Section 73 of the Contract Act, highlighting that a party can claim compensation for breach of contract if certain prerequisites are met. The court concludes that compensation can be claimed independently of the notice period if breach is established and if efforts were made to minimize damages. The court dismisses both appeals.

Summary: Instant petition challenging the orders, passed by Returning Officer and learned Election Appellate Tribunal, whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner for contesting the forthcoming general election-2018 was rejected.sub-section (9) and (10) of Section 62 of the Election Act 2017 are discussed.So far as the exercise of the discretionary powers in upsetting the order passed by the forum below is concerned, this court has to comprehend what illegality or irregularity and or violation of law has been committed by the courts below which caused miscarriage of justice. Reference may be placed to the case of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through Attorney v. Abdul Waheed Abro and 2 others (2015 PLC 259).The instant petition is devoid of merit, thus, constrained to dismiss the petition with no order as to costs.

Summary: The status of the petitioner-company being trans-provincial establishment is not disputed seriously by any of the respondents. In this backdrop the moot point which requires determination of this Court is as to "what is the forum and the law for registration of trade union in case of trans-provincial establishment". Industrial Relations Act, 2012 was promulgated on 14th March, 2012 to consolidate and rationalize the law in Islamabad Capital Territory and at trans-provincial level, relating to formation of trade unions and federations or trade unions, determining the collective bargaining agents, regulation of relations between employers and workers, the avoidance and settlement of any differences or disputes arising between them or matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto. It was made applicable to all persons employed in any establishment or industry, in the Islamabad Capital Territory or carrying on business in more than one province.

Summary: The private respondents were employees of K-Electric and had obtained an ad-interim order from the NIRC against unfair labor practices. The Single Member Bench of NIRC had initially dismissed their petitions, but the Full Bench allowed their appeals, resulting in the order being challenged by K-Electric before the High Court. K-Electric argues that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is the proper forum for cases related to salaries or wages. However, the court determines that the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) has jurisdiction in this case since K-Electric is considered a trans-provincial establishment under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA-2012). It clarifies that the NIRC's jurisdiction applies to cases involving unfair labor practices, and the case involving K-Electric and the private respondents does fall within this category. Ultimately, the court dismisses the constitutional petitions.

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: This case involves Appellant who was convicted under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for the murder of Muhammad Younis and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that Muhammad Aslam, along with other co-accused, shot and killed Muhammad Younis due to a group rivalry. A private prosecution was initiated by the complainant after the police investigation concluded that another person, Khalid alias Khalo, was responsible for the murder. The trial court acquitted the co-accused Fiaz Ahmad but convicted Muhammad Aslam. Muhammad Aslam appealed his conviction, while the complainant filed a revision for enhancement of his sentence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence on record supports the conviction of Muhammad Aslam for the murder of Muhammad Younis. 2- Whether the trial court's acquittal of co-accused Fiaz Ahmad was justified, and whether the conviction of Muhammad Aslam is consistent with the available evidence. 3- Whether the prosecution proved the motive and corroborating evidence sufficiently to sustain the conviction. 4- Whether the failure to match the bullet and firearm scientifically impacts the prosecution's case. 5- Whether the polygraph test results or any other forensic evidence could substantiate the appellant's guilt. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and Muhammad Aslam was acquitted. The court found that: Inconsistency in Evidence: The medical and ocular evidence were inconsistent. The postmortem report indicated close-range fire with blackening around the wound, but the prosecution's narrative claimed a distant shot. Moreover, the investigation found that the bullet recovered from the deceased was not fired from the rifle attributed to the appellant, but rather from a pistol. This mismatch cast serious doubt on the prosecution's case. Witness Credibility: The testimony of the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) was questionable. Both witnesses failed to provide a clear and credible explanation for their presence at the crime scene. Their testimony was further undermined by contradictions and a lack of corroborating evidence, such as the absence of bloodstains on their clothing and the failure to produce motorcycles allegedly used during the occurrence. Motive: The alleged motive for the murder was not convincingly proven. The prosecution claimed group rivalry as the motive, but no independent evidence was presented to support this. The deceased and the appellant were not directly involved in any prior conflict, and the relevant FIR from the previous dispute was not tendered as evidence. Polygraph Test: The polygraph test conducted on the appellant did not yield conclusive results. The court noted that while polygraph tests could be a useful investigative tool, they cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence for conviction, especially when the test results are inconclusive. Scientific Evidence: The bullet recovered from the deceased was identified as a 30-bore pistol bullet, whereas the appellant was alleged to have used a rifle. The failure to link the recovered bullet to the alleged murder weapon weakened the prosecution’s case substantially. Failure of Investigation: The police investigation initially identified another individual, Khalid alias Khalo, as the main culprit, and the trial court acquitted Khalid during the prosecution’s case. This created further doubt about the involvement of Muhammad Aslam, especially as the police’s investigation did not implicate him conclusively. The appeal was allowed, and Muhammad Aslam was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The revision filed by the complainant for the enhancement of the sentence was also dismissed. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Zaman v. The State (2014 SCMR 749): Blackening of a wound indicates close-range firing, contradicting the prosecution's version of distant firing. Hakim Ali v. The State (1971 SCMR 432): The prosecution must provide independent evidence to prove motive, and failure to do so weakens the case. Najaf Ali Shah v. The State (2021 SCMR 736): A single doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused. Husnain Mustafa v. The State (2019 SCMR 1914): Polygraph tests can be used for investigation but do not provide conclusive evidence for conviction.

Summary: Background: The Federation of Pakistan (Appellant) filed an intra-court appeal (ICA) under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging the judgment passed by a Single Judge-in-Chamber on 03.03.2016. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent (Khalid Mehmood), granting him an additional residential plot under a scheme announced by the Prime Minister on 20.07.2006. Khalid Mehmood, a retired civil servant, had served as a Federal Secretary before retiring in 2005 and was denied the additional plot despite being eligible under the Prime Minister’s package. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent, who was re-employed after his retirement, was eligible for an additional plot under the Prime Minister’s package. 2- Whether the denial of the additional plot to the respondent amounted to discrimination, considering similar benefits were granted to other officers of equal rank. 3- Whether the respondent met the criteria of serving as a Federal Secretary for at least one year, as stipulated in the Prime Minister's package. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan, holding that: The respondent had been promoted to BS-22 and served as a Federal Secretary, making him eligible for the additional plot. The court noted that the respondent had served as a Secretary (BS-22) before his retirement and his subsequent postings to provincial departments did not diminish his status. The court found that other officers who were similarly situated to the respondent, such as Tariq Aziz, Nawid Ahsan, and others, had been allotted additional plots. The denial of the same benefit to the respondent amounted to discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The court held that there was no reasonable or intelligible basis for distinguishing the respondent's case from other officers who were granted the additional plot. The classification used to exclude the respondent was arbitrary and not based on any justifiable grounds. The court referred to several precedents on discrimination and classification, reinforcing that any difference in treatment must be based on reasonable grounds and not arbitrary distinctions. Consequently, the court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, granting the respondent the additional plot and dismissing the appeal of the Federation. -----Citations/Precedents: Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 1691): Discrimination must have a reasonable basis. Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 201): Reasonableness is a fundamental component of equality and non-arbitrariness. Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265): Classification must be based on intelligible differentia. Secretary Economic Affairs Division v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1687): Equality clause does not prohibit classification, but the classification must be reasonable. Muhammad Nasir Mahmood v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 107): Reasonable distinction must be fair, proper, and equitable. Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Nasir v. Secretary Finance Division (1997 SCMR 1026): Classification that is arbitrary is unconstitutional.