Summary: (a) Labour Law ----Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Standing Order No.1(b)---Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, S. 33(8)---Regularization of employees---Scope and applicability---Petitioners (WASA Rawalpindi) challenged the Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) orders directing the regularization of employees against specific posts beyond their original grievance petitions---Held, under Standing Order No.1(b), a workman who serves for more than three months against a post of a permanent nature attains the status of a permanent workman, but this does not entitle an employee to regularization against a post for which they do not meet eligibility criteria---Service rules framed in 2012 for WASA employees required compliance with eligibility conditions, and employees not meeting such conditions were regularized against alternate available posts---Labour Court and PLAT acted beyond their jurisdiction by modifying the terms of regularization in implementation proceedings, which contradicted prior judgments that had attained finality---Impugned orders set aside. -----Cited Cases: Mahmood-ul-Hassan v. Munir Ahmad (2018 MLD 771) University of Agriculture v. Tasneem Kausar (2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 183) (b) Civil Procedure ----Principle of pleadings---Scope of relief---A party cannot claim relief beyond its pleadings---Respondents had specified their respective designations in their original grievance petitions and affidavits, which formed the basis of their regularization---Labour Court and PLAT erred in granting relief beyond what was initially sought, thereby violating established legal principles that prevent courts from granting relief beyond the pleadings of a party---Held, respondents were bound by their original grievance petitions, and subsequent claims for designation changes were legally unsustainable. -----Cited Cases: Irshad Masih v. Emmanuel Masih (2014 SCMR 1481) Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge (PLD 2009 SC 760) Mst. Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Co. (1994 SCMR 22) (c) Administrative Law ----Service rules and eligibility criteria---Determination of eligibility for regularization---Judicial interference in executive discretion---Held, the competent authority has the exclusive discretion to determine the eligibility of employees for regularization in accordance with prescribed service rules---Since WASA framed its service rules in 2012, employees could not be regularized against posts they did not qualify for---Labour Court and PLAT overstepped their authority by directing regularization beyond the eligibility criteria established in the service rules---Judicial review cannot be used to bypass statutory requirements for employment regularization. -----Cited Cases: University of Agriculture v. Tasneem Kausar (2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 183) (d) Execution of Judgments ----Powers of an Executing Court---Scope of implementation proceedings---Labour Court and PLAT, in execution proceedings, altered the terms of regularization beyond what was originally decided in grievance petitions and upheld by this Court in prior judgments---Held, an executing court cannot modify or extend the scope of the original judgment it is enforcing---Implementation proceedings must adhere strictly to the terms of the final decision and cannot introduce new elements inconsistent with prior judicial determinations. -----Cited Cases: Irshad Masih v. Emmanuel Masih (2014 SCMR 1481) Tauqeer Ahmad Qureshi v. Additional District Judge (PLD 2009 SC 760) (e) Administration of Justice ----Judicial review of tribunal decisions---Appellate tribunal’s role in reviewing decisions of lower forums---Held, PLAT failed to independently assess the merits of the case and merely upheld the Labour Court’s decision without proper scrutiny---Such an approach renders appellate oversight ineffective and compromises the integrity of judicial review---Revisional courts must ensure that subordinate tribunals do not exceed their jurisdiction or grant relief in a manner contrary to law. -----Disposition: Writ petition accepted. Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) orders set aside. Respondents not entitled to regularization beyond the terms of their original grievance petitions. No order as to costs.

Summary: Bail granted----(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497: Post-arrest bail---Delay in trial---Rule of consistency. The petitioner was charged under Sections 302/34 PPC and remained incarcerated for over 4.5 years without the conclusion of his trial. Despite earlier directions from the court to conclude the trial within ten days, the prosecution failed to produce the remaining witnesses, causing undue delay. The co-accused had already been granted bail on the principle of consistency. It is a settled principle of law that an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely as a form of punishment merely because the offense falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars. ----Cited Cases: Rule of consistency principle applied. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- S. 497: Bail granted despite prohibitory clause---Delay in trial---No misuse of concession of bail anticipated. While offenses under Section 302 PPC are non-bailable and carry capital punishment, prolonged incarceration without trial violates the principle of justice. The court observed that keeping the accused imprisoned indefinitely without concluding the trial would amount to punitive detention. The failure of the prosecution to act diligently, along with the absence of any apprehension that the petitioner would misuse the concession of bail, justified granting bail. ----Disposition: The bail petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of PKR 500,000 with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. ----Rule Applied: Rule of consistency: Bail granted to one accused was extended to the petitioner on similar grounds.

Summary: ----Art. 199 – Public Procurement – Cancellation of Tenders – Government Accountability – Principles of Transparency The petitioner challenged the cancellation and reissuance of tenders concerning the construction of government facilities in Islamabad, alleging irregularities and lack of transparency in the tendering process. The tenders were repeatedly published, modified, and ultimately awarded without clear reasoning or justification for their cancellation. The court emphasized the principles of transparency, fair play, and accountability in public procurement processes, holding that arbitrary cancellations undermine public trust and create suspicion. Reliance was placed on the guidelines provided by the Planning Commission of Pakistan and previous rulings of the Supreme Court. (b) Governance – Fiscal Responsibility – Employment Policies – Provincial Development Plans** The court highlighted the province's financial constraints and emphasized the need for prudent fiscal policies. It was noted that: Around 80,000 government posts remain vacant in Balochistan. Creation of new posts should be restricted to essential sectors such as health, education, and police. Redundant posts should be reassigned or restructured. A ban was placed on unnecessary appointments in the Civil Secretariat. Emphasis was placed on promoting employment in the private sector, freelancing, and entrepreneurship rather than increasing reliance on public-sector jobs. (c) Pension Liabilities – Financial Sustainability – Austerity Measures The court expressed concern over escalating pension liabilities, projected to exceed PKR 71 billion for the fiscal year 2023–2024. Recommendations included: Introduction of contributory pension schemes. Appointment of employees on a contract basis with compensation for pension benefits. Limiting pension benefits to spouses or dependent children. Capping pension payments for a fixed period after an employee's demise. (d) Public Sector Development Program (PSDP) – Guidelines for Sustainable Development The court issued guidelines for streamlining the PSDP: Inclusion of projects in PSDP must follow Planning Commission guidelines. Focus on collective projects with measurable social and economic benefits. Priority to ongoing schemes to prevent cost overruns. Emphasis on income-generating schemes for economic growth. Sectoral balance and regional parity must be ensured in resource allocation. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure transparency and accountability. ----Disposition: The petition was disposed of with directives to the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Development), and all Administrative Secretaries of the Government of Balochistan to ensure compliance with the outlined recommendations. The court emphasized sustainable financial management, fiscal responsibility, and strict adherence to procurement and development guidelines.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): —Ss. 2(7), O.III, R.4 & O.XXVII, R.8B—Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, S.126—Government Pleader—Memo of Appearance vs. Vakalatnama—Status of Local Government (KMC) as "Government"—Scope and interpretation. The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) filed a constitutional petition challenging the order of the Additional District Judge, which rejected the Memo of Appearance filed by KMC’s panel advocate and directed the advocate to file a Vakalatnama instead—The court clarified that under Section 2(7) of the CPC and Rule 44 of the Sindh Civil Court Rules, a "Government Pleader" includes legal representatives appointed by local governments—Local governments, including KMC, are recognized as the third tier of government under Articles 32 and 140A of the Constitution—The Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, empowers local councils to appoint legal advisors under Section 126—The Memo of Appearance filed by KMC’s panel advocate, appointed through an official KMC order, was legally valid—The rejection of the Memo of Appearance by the Additional District Judge was found to be contrary to established legal principles and precedents—The Supreme Court judgment in Pakistan Railways v. O.M.R. Expert Consultants (PLD 1990 SC 800) supports the validity of Memo of Appearance in government representation—The Additional District Judge failed to follow the Supreme Court's binding precedents and statutory provisions. -----Cited Cases: Pakistan through General Manager, Pakistan Railways v. Messrs O.M.R. Expert Consultants (PLD 1990 SC 800) Raja Rab Nawaz v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1629) Rasheed Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2017 SC 121) -----Disposition: Petition allowed—The Additional District Judge was directed to accept the Memo of Appearance filed by the panel advocate of KMC, subject to scrutiny as per the law.

Summary: Sentence reduction----(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 34---Conviction and sentencing---Ocular evidence corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence---Appellant was charged alongside four absconding co-accused for indiscriminate firing, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. Eye-witness testimony by close relatives of the deceased was found consistent and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of ballistic material. The prosecution successfully proved the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Convictions under Sections 302(b), 324, and 148 PPC were upheld. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ---S. 302(b)---Sentencing---Death sentence converted to life imprisonment---Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment due to mitigating circumstances, including the uncertainty regarding which accused’s gunfire caused the fatal injuries and the motive being attributed to an altercation involving the absconding co-accused. Life imprisonment on three counts under Section 302(b) was deemed appropriate. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ---S. 382-B---Benefit of time spent in custody---The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant, allowing for the adjustment of the time spent in custody toward his sentence. (d) Evidence---Reliability of testimony by related witnesses: ---The eye-witnesses, although relatives of the deceased and accused, provided straightforward and corroborated testimonies supported by medical and circumstantial evidence. Their relationship with the deceased did not render their testimony inadmissible in the absence of animosity or a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. -----Disposition: Conviction under Section 302(b) PPC was maintained; however, the death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment on three counts. Compensation of Rs. 2 million and associated penalties were upheld. Convictions and sentences under Sections 324 and 148 PPC were also maintained. Murder Reference No. 11-P of 2023 was answered in the negative.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: tax reference, in ITA No. 164/IB/2012 and ITA 135/IB/2012 dated 13.11.14 Tax Year 2006

Summary: Bail granted---Background:The case involves Criminal Petition No. 1294 of 2023 brought before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order dated 12 October 2023 issued by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Crl. Misc. No. 2761-B of 2023. The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the said order.---Issues:Whether the petitioner's counsel properly withdrew the petition in light of a fresh ground for bail.The appropriateness of referring to the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the "august" Court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court noted that if a fresh ground for bail had arisen before the impugned order was issued, the petitioner's counsel should not have withdrawn the petition but instead pressed for a decision on its merits. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the importance of pursuing petitions on their merits rather than withdrawing them prematurely. As the petitioner's counsel indicated a desire to pursue an alternate remedy, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.The Court observed the repeated use of the term "august" before referring to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It clarified that the Constitution designates the Court as the "Supreme Court of Pakistan" without any prefix or adjective. Therefore, all parties should adhere to the constitutional description of the Court.---Citations/Precedents:Nazir Ahmad v State (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241)Muhammad Aslam v State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 41)---Quote:The Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution as the Supreme Court of Pakistan without any prefix or adjective; we should, therefore, not refer to it as Apex or August Court and endeavour to abide by the language of the Constitution.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, owners of private forests in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), challenged the imposition of a complete ban on cutting, felling, extraction, sale, and transportation of trees and timber from forest lands, including private forests, imposed by Ordinance III of 2023 dated 26.06.2023. The petitioners argued that this ordinance violated their fundamental rights under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974, specifically their right to property and to conduct business. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Ordinance III of 2023, which imposed a ban on activities related to trees and timber, was valid and enforceable. 2- Whether the petitioners’ fundamental rights to property and business were violated by the ordinance. 3- Whether the respondents could impose such a ban without providing compensation or following due process. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Validity of Ordinance III of 2023: The court noted that the ordinance, promulgated on 26.06.2023, had expired after four months as per Article 41 of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974. Thus, the ordinance had "died its natural death," rendering the writ petitions against it infructuous. --Violation of Fundamental Rights: The court found that the complete ban imposed by the ordinance was arbitrary and violated the petitioners’ fundamental rights to property and to conduct business as protected under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974. The ordinance failed to consider the economic impact on individuals who rely on forest-related activities for their livelihood. --Due Process and Compensation: The court emphasized that any deprivation of property must follow due process and include compensation, as established in previous judgments and legal principles. The court referenced PLD 1979 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 139, which underscores the need for legislative action and compensation when depriving individuals of property. --The court set aside the impugned ordinance and related notifications and circulars, directing the respondents to refrain from interfering in the peaceful business operations of the petitioners. The court also highlighted that any future policy regarding private forests should align with legal precedents and ensure the protection of fundamental rights. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 41 of the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974: Establishes the procedure and limitations for promulgating ordinances. PLD 1979 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 139: Emphasizes the need for legislative action and compensation for deprivation of property. Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Fatima Sharif Textile Kasoor and others [2009 PTD 37]: Upholds the principle of providing notice and adhering to natural justice. The court's decision ensures that any governmental action affecting private property and business must be reasonable, transparent, and within the bounds of the law, upholding the petitioners' fundamental rights.

Summary: (a) Words and phrases- -Slash (/)-Connotation-Slash (/) - a forward sloping line (/) - technically known as a virgule but also called a slant, solidus, or stroke, an oblique, an oblique stroke, a diagonal, a solidus, a forward slash, and a separatrix is a mark of punctuation that serves several purposes in writing, essentially standing in for other words as a quick and clear way of showing the connection between two things. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary; The Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Howards v. Fifth Third Bank, No. 18-cv-00869, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20088 and 2023 WL 1778522, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2023) rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 12 (2)-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Fraud and misrepresentation-Power of attorney-Interpretation-Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that attorney of petitioner did not have any authority to file such application-Validity-Attorney was acting on behalf of principal for his benefit in relation to subject property with clear power to safeguard interest of petitioner-General Power of Attorney had granted powers to the attorney to do all things on behalf of the principal in relation to protecting his rights-Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court could not deprive the attorney from exercising his power to file a suit, written statement or, from filing an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., on behalf of his principal-Such interpretation was in the context of facts and circumstances peculiar to the matter of petitioner-Application of rules of interpretation regarding the punctuation slash (/) had different outcomes depending on the facts and circumstances of each case-High Court set aside orders passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits after recording of evidence, as the attorney was duly authorized and competent to file application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.-Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.