Summary: Petitioner is a member of Anti Dumping Tribunal. Her govt. accommodation at F-6 has been canceled by having ministry without any rhyme or reason.

Summary: The key legal points and analysis provided by the court are as follows:Right of Khula in Islam: The court emphasized that the right of Khula is an absolute right for women according to Islamic law, as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. This means that a wife has the inherent right to seek the dissolution of her marriage in a court of law without being required to prove mistreatment or misconduct by her husband. This point underscores the fundamental nature of the right of Khula in Islam.Compensation and Dowry: The court clarified that a wife is not always obligated to forfeit her dowry entirely in exchange for Khula. If a wife seeks Khula and willingly returns the full amount of the dowry (Mahar) to her husband, the court is obligated to grant the decree of Khula without delay. The court further emphasized that the amount of monetary compensation to be paid by the wife in a Khula case cannot exceed the total dowry received. This point is crucial in ensuring fairness and equity in Khula proceedings.Evidence and Circumstances: If a wife claims that she is seeking Khula due to mistreatment or ill-treatment by her husband, the court has the authority to determine the compensation amount. The court's decision in this regard is based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, with the goal of ensuring that justice is served.Role of the Court: The court stressed its role in facilitating the right of Khula for women rather than denying it. This legal analysis underscores the court's duty to uphold and protect the rights granted to women under Islamic law. Ultimately, the Shariat Petition was dismissed as it was not considered maintainable. The court's decision rested on the understanding that Khula is an inherent right of women in Islam, and the court's role is to facilitate this right rather than deny it.

Summary: Judgement on Khulla --- The central issue revolved around the legality of Khula (dissolution of marriage initiated by the wife) and whether the Family Court's judgment was in accordance with Islamic law. The petitioner argued that the Family Court's decision was influenced by a provision, Section 10(5) of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 2015, which had been declared null and void by the Federal Shariat Court in a previous judgment.The court clarified several key points related to Khula in Islamic law:Khula is an absolute right granted to women by Islamic law, allowing them to seek the dissolution of their marriage through a court.A wife can claim Khula without the necessity of proving mistreatment or ill-treatment. She only needs to state her inability to continue living with her husband within the limits set by Allah.The amount of compensation (Badl-e-Khula) to be paid by the wife to her husband should not exceed the total amount of Mahar (dower) received at the time of marriage. However, this amount can be reduced depending on the circumstances of the case.The court can grant Khula even if the husband does not agree to it, provided that the wife meets the necessary conditions.The court emphasized that Khula is a fundamental right for women and cannot be denied. Once a judgment attains finality, it becomes binding on high courts and all subordinate courts.Ultimately, the Shariat Petition was dismissed because it was not maintainable. The court's decision was based on the principles of Islamic law and the assertion that the right of Khula for women is absolute and protected by the Quran and Sunnah. The court provided a detailed analysis of Khula and its legal implications within the framework of Islamic jurisprudence.

Summary: (1) Section 59 of the Industrial Relations Act 2012. (2) Burden of proof lies upon the employee to prove that he is ?workman? (3) If the concurrent findings are found in violation of law or defective then it can be reversed by the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. ---- Background:Civil Petition No. 2997 of 2021 was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3312/2020. The petitioners, United Bank Limited (UBL) through its President and others, sought relief against the dismissal of their writ petition.---Issues:Whether the respondent, Jamil Ahmed, was rightfully terminated from employment or if he was covered under the definition of a 'worker' or 'workman.'Whether the lower courts properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the law correctly.Whether the appellate court could intervene in the findings of the lower courts.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi and Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, considered the arguments presented by both parties. The bone of contention was the employment status of the respondent, specifically whether he was a 'worker' or 'workman' or if he performed managerial duties. The Court reviewed the termination letter, charge sheet, and the respondent's reply, which indicated admissions regarding his employment status and promotion to Branch Manager.The Court emphasized that the determination of employment status should depend on the nature of duties performed rather than the job title. It noted that certain documentary evidence pertaining to the respondent's employment status and admissions were not adequately considered by the lower courts.Regarding the appellate jurisdiction, the Court highlighted the importance of appellate review in correcting errors of law and fact. It observed that if the concurrent findings of the lower courts are found to be in violation of law or based on obvious defects, the appellate court has the authority to intervene.Ultimately, the Court converted the petition into an appeal and set aside the judgments of the Islamabad High Court and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The matter was remanded back to the NIRC for fresh consideration within three months.----Citations/Precedents:The Court did not explicitly cite any legal precedents but relied on established principles of appellate review and the importance of considering all relevant evidence in employment disputes.

Summary: Decorations Act (XLIII of 1975)- -S. 3-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 259-Institution or creation of decorations-Nomination-Vested right-Scope-Petitioner was nominated for Sitara-i-Imtiaz, but was not conferred the award by President of Pakistan-Validity-Petitioner was employee of an Institution which was attached department of Ministry of Defence under Schedule II of Rules of Business, 1973-Name of petitioner was forwarded by his Institution to the Ministry for further recommendation to Cabinet Division for conferment of the Award in relation to his public service as a civil servant-Ministry of Defence did not further recommend name of petitioner for nomination of the Award-Merely nominating name of petitioner by his parent Department to relevant Division, did not create any legal/vested or fundamental right in his favour-Petitioner neither approached Ministry of Defence nor Cabinet Division for agitating the matter-Merely, recommendation of his name by nominating agency did not create any substantial or fundamental right for conferment of Award in favour of petitioner-High Court declined to direct respondent authority to forward name of petitioner to Cabinet Division-Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Akbar v. Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice (Justice Division), Islamabad through Secretary and another 1996 SCMR 1017; Nazir A. Khan Swati v. Ministry of Law and Justice and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 372; Asdullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2005 SCMR 445; Kamran Martin v. Mst. Siera Bibi and 4 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 597 and Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO to Chief Justice and others 2014 SCMR 122 rel. Petitioner in person.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending