Summary: (a) International Islamic University Ordinance (XXX of 1985)- Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344 applicable. Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-I, Lahore PLD 1985 SC 107 ref. (b) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)- -S. 3(2), proviso-Intra Court Appeal (ICA)-Maintainability-Proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972-Scope-Essential requirement to invoke the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 is to see whether the remedy of at least one appeal, review or revision is available under the law against the original order, in the proceedings in which the law is applicable to decide the ICA on merit-Law must prescribe for the remedy of appeal, review or revision, and if so section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 will be applicable, notwithstanding whether that remedy is available to the person filing the ICA.

Summary: Police Order (22 of 2002)- -Art. 37-Police reforms-Provincial and District Public Safety Commissions-Non-establishment of-Statutory obligation of the Provincial government-Devolution of political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority was one time act which could not be withdrawn after insertion of the Art. 140A in the Constitution-Moreover, there was difference between delegation and devolution-Delegation was a power of the superior forum like Provincial government, which could be withdrawn at any time-Devolution of responsibility and authority under the Constitution once given could not be revoked-Though the dissolution of local government and role of the provincial government after devolution is not directly in question yet, there had to be a continuity for elected representation of the people which was essence of the Constitution for exercising sovereignty-Article 37 of the Police Order, 2002, if read with the Preamble and Article 140A of the Constitution, clarified without any doubt that a public check, through their chosen representatives, was envisaged on the misuse of power by the police-At least for the purpose of the Art. 37, in absence of newly elected representation, the representatives lastly elected by the people shall continue to represent the people unless newly elected representatives replaced them-There cannot be any gap for the people to exercise sovereignty through their elected representation-Provincial government was directed to comply with the obligation of Art. 37 of the Police Order, 2002, within 30-days, without fail by nominating amongst last representatives of the respective local government. Syed Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Assistant Attorney General for Federation of Pakistan. Khalid Ishaq, Advocate General, Punjab, Waseem Majeed Malik, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Muhammad Afzal Bashir, Deputy Secretary (Law) Home Department and Syed Tahir Raza, Section Officer (P-III), Home Department for Province.

Summary: Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 deals with the partition of the joint land. Section 147 of the Act ibid provides a mechanism for affirmation of partitions privately effected. This provision clearly manifests that if a party pleads some private partition effected under some family settlement with regard to partition of joint land, he has to apply to the revenue officer obtaining an order for affirmation of such partition. In other words in absence of any order of affirmation in terms of Section 147 of the "Act, 1967" party relying upon private partition would be precluded to claim any right thereunder. It would not be out of context to mention here that Chapter 18 of the Land Record Manual provides a procedure in partition cases and clause 18.1 especially deals with private partitions. Guidance in this respect can be sought from MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR and others versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others (2007 SCMR 1867) and Mst. WALAYAT BEGUM and 3 others versus MUHAMMAD AFSAR and 3 others (2014 CLC 1103).

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Labour Law ----Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968---Standing Orders No.6 & 7---Jurisdiction of Labour Court---Payment of bonus to workers---Scope and applicability---Held, violation of Standing Order No.6 falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Standing Order No.7(6) of the Ordinance, 1968---Labour Court is the only competent forum to try violations under the said Ordinance, and no other court or tribunal has jurisdiction over such matters---Employer’s argument that the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) and Labour Court lacked jurisdiction due to the employer being a trans-provincial establishment was not tenable---Jurisdiction must be determined based on the parent statute, and Standing Order No.7(6) confers exclusive jurisdiction to the Labour Court. ----- Cited Cases: Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Khalid Farooq (1991 SCMR 599) Chaudhry Shujat Hussain v. The State (1995 SCMR 1249) (b) Constitutional Law ----Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, S. 54---Distinction between trans-provincial matters and provincial jurisdiction---Scope of NIRC’s powers limited to unfair labour practices, trade union registration, and disputes of national importance---Held, payment of bonus to workers does not fall under the jurisdiction of NIRC as per S. 54 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, but rather remains within the purview of the Labour Court under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968---Labour Court’s assumption of jurisdiction was legally valid. ----- Cited Cases: Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Member NIRC (2014 SCMR 535) Messrs Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Punjab (2023 PLC 177) (c) Administrative Law ----Labour Officer’s authority---Factories Act, 1934, S. 29---Industrial Relations Act, 2012, S. 30---Inspector’s powers under different labour laws---Held, Labour Officer validly filed report under Standing Order No.6 of the Ordinance, 1968, as he had jurisdiction to inspect compliance and report violations to the Labour Court---Employer’s argument that Labour Officer should have referred the matter to NIRC under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was misplaced since Sections 29 and 30 of the 2012 Act did not cover matters related to payment of bonus under the Ordinance, 1968. ----- Cited Cases: Muhammad Shabbir v. Quaid-e-Azam University (2022 PLC 82) (d) Labour Law – Payment of Bonus ----Employer’s obligation to pay bonus---Standing Order No.10-C of the Ordinance, 1968---Failure to pay bonus at the end of the financial year constitutes a violation---Employer contended that employees were covered under Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI) and Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI), hence not entitled to additional bonus---Held, employer’s reliance on PESSI and EOBI registration was irrelevant, as bonus obligations under Standing Order No.10-C operate independently of social security contributions. (e) Execution of Judgments ----Concurrent findings of Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT)---Principle of non-interference in constitutional jurisdiction---Held, High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or suffer from a material legal infirmity---Employer failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or illegality in the decisions of the Labour Court and PLAT---Constitutional petition dismissed. ----- Cited Cases: Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar (2011 SCMR 1073) Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT) orders upheld. Employer bound to comply with the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, regarding payment of bonus. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 17; Contempt proceedings---Non-compliance with Tribunal orders concerning reinstatement of service and payment of arrears under the 7th Wage Board Award---Maintainability---Petitioner’s services were terminated without reason and in violation of a Tribunal's interim orders to maintain status quo and not take adverse action---Petitioner sought relief through contempt applications instead of challenging the termination before a competent forum---Tribunal issued directions for reinstatement and payment of arrears, but respondent management failed to comply---Tribunal emphasized that contempt of court proceedings cannot grant reinstatement, which must be sought through the appropriate forum---Reliance placed on the principle that courts decide disputes based on established facts and not conjectures (PLD 2022 SC 574). (b) Labour Law: ----Implementation of 7th Wage Board Award---Recovery of arrears---Petitioner successfully recovered the decretal amount of Rs. 808,704/- awarded under the Tribunal's main judgment via execution proceedings---Tribunal utilized innovative mechanisms, including directions to advertisement departments to deposit cheques directly for satisfaction of decrees, reflecting evolving legal principles aimed at expediting justice (PLD 2022 SC 99). (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----Contempt of Court---Nature and scope---Violation of court orders by respondent management led to contempt proceedings; however, Tribunal held that reinstatement cannot be ordered in contempt jurisdiction---Court's role in contempt matters limited to addressing the contemnor's violation and ensuring compliance, not granting substantive relief outside the original jurisdiction. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed as devoid of merit; the execution petition was declared satisfied following the recovery of the awarded amount.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: This case concerns criminal appeals by two appellants convicted by an Additional Sessions Court for charges arising from a robbery and murder at a petrol pump. Initially, the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fines under sections 396/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). They were convicted for a robbery-related murder involving three assailants, where one of the accused fatally shot the petrol pump owner. The appellants sought acquittal from the Federal Shariat Court, citing legal deficiencies in the original trial judgment, including jurisdictional and sentencing issues. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court’s judgment was valid, considering the appellants were convicted under section 396 of the PPC (dacoity with murder), which applies to crimes involving five or more persons, while only three assailants were involved. -----2- Whether the trial court erred in not providing reasons for not imposing the death sentence, as mandated by section 367(5) of the Cr.P.C. and section 17(4) of the Hudood Ordinance. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Federal Shariat Court found that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants under section 396 of the PPC, as this section applies only when five or more persons are involved in the crime, while only three persons participated. Additionally, the trial court did not justify the life sentence in place of the death sentence, which contravenes section 367(5) of the Cr.P.C., requiring courts to explain any deviation from the death penalty in eligible cases. Consequently, the Federal Shariat Court accepted the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and remanded the case for a new judgment, directing the trial court to address the mandatory provisions of law and allow the parties to present arguments. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) – Dacoity with murder, applicable when five or more individuals commit the offense. Section 367(5), Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Requirement for courts to provide reasons for not imposing the death penalty in eligible cases. Section 17(4), Hudood Ordinance – Mandates the death penalty for the offense of haraabah involving murder. Muhammad Ismail v. The State, 2017 SCMR 713 – Established that statutory requirements must be strictly adhered to, implying that deviations are implicitly prohibited.