Summary: (a) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968----S. 2(i) & Standing Orders, Sched., para. I(b) & (e)---Industrial Relations Act, 2012---Permanent workman and temporary workman---Determination of status---Telephone Operator employed by Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. on 28.07.1992 allegedly on temporary basis, who served continuously for more than two decades---NIRC accepted his grievance petition and High Court dismissed constitutional petition of the employer---Held, labour laws prescribe no rigid formula for determining the legal character of a worker, which is to be determined in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case, including nature of employment, continuity of service and the governing statutory framework---Standing Orders distinguish a permanent workman (engaged on work of permanent nature likely to last more than nine months and having satisfactorily completed probationary period of three months) from a temporary workman (engaged on work of essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within nine months)---Status of a workman is determined not by nomenclature or designation assigned by the employer but by the actual nature, continuity and duration of employment; where duties are regular, continuous and permanent in nature and the workman remains engaged beyond the prescribed statutory period, he is to be classified as a permanent workman, provided he falls within the definition of "workman" in S. 2(i)---Continuous employment for more than two decades without break, acknowledged by the employer in its written reply before the Single Member NIRC, was wholly inconsistent with temporary employment; nothing on record suggested that the work was seasonal, casual, project-based or likely to be completed within nine months, or that the engagement was ever treated as short-term or intermittent, or that any disciplinary proceedings or adverse action concerning the nature or continuity of employment was taken---Fora below rightly concluded that the respondent squarely fell within the statutory definition of a permanent workman and was entitled to all legal protections and benefits attached to such status. Cited Cases: • Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division, Pak. P.W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz PLD 1996 SC 610 • Government of Punjab v. Punjab Appellate Tribunal, Lahore 2002 SCMR 878 (b) Labour law---Regularization---Concept of regularization in industrial and labour jurisprudence---Effect of declaration of permanent status---Retrospective benefits---Employer contended that relief of regularization could be granted only from date of filing of grievance petition---Held, there exists no concept of regularization in the strict or technical sense in the domain of labour and industrial jurisprudence; neither the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 nor the Ordinance of 1968 contains any provision envisaging or regulating regularization of services of a workman---Status of a workman is not conferred through a formal act of regularization by the employer but flows from operation of law once statutory conditions relating to nature and continuity of employment are satisfied---Workmen governed by the said labour laws do not fall within the definition of civil servant in S. 2 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, where the concept of regularization has evolved through statutory provisions, service rules and policy frameworks---Real question is not whether services were liable to be regularized but whether the workman had acquired the status of permanent workman under the law---Once statutory criteria are satisfied, status arises by operation of law and not from a subsequent order of court or tribunal; any declaration by a court, tribunal or commission is merely declaratory---Concurrent findings of NIRC and High Court were that the respondent had long ago fulfilled the requirements for classification as permanent workman; grant of benefits from the date such status accrued cannot be equated with retrospective regularization and merely gives effect to legal consequences already ensued---Direction of NIRC to "regularize" the service was correctly understood by the High Court as a direction to extend to the respondent all rights and privileges guaranteed to a permanent workman under the law. Cited Cases: • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar v. Sher Aman 2022 SCMR 406 • Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad v. Fazal-e-Subhan PLD 2024 SC 515 (c) Limitation---Grievance petition---Continuing wrong---Claim of respondent was founded not on a regularization policy or one-time service-related event but on the assertion that, by operation of the Ordinance of 1968, he had acquired the status of permanent workman and was being unlawfully deprived of attached rights and benefits---Held, failure of the employer to recognize him as permanent workman and extend the benefits constituted a continuing and recurring wrong giving rise to a fresh cause of action so long as the deprivation persisted during the employment relationship---Statutory period for filing a grievance petition cannot be construed so as to enable an employer to perpetuate denial of statutory rights with impunity---Grievance petition was not barred by limitation merely because the respondent remained in service for a considerable period before formally asserting his claim---Finding of High Court that the claim was maintainable and not defeated by the law of limitation upheld. (d) Constitution of Pakistan----Arts. 175F & 199---Federal Constitutional Court---Transfer of appeals from judgments of High Courts under Art. 199---Court was established through the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2025 with exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments, decrees or final orders of High Courts passed under Art. 199, subject to grant of leave under Art. 175F(1)(c); Supreme Court ceased to have jurisdiction over such matters and the present case stood automatically transferred by virtue of Art. 175F(2). Disposition: Impugned judgment dated 24.10.2023 of the Islamabad High Court in W.P. No. 1980/2022 found to suffer from no legal or jurisdictional infirmity; leave refused and petition (C.P.L.A. No. 4444/2023) dismissed; no order as to costs. Approved for Reporting.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Doctrine of judicial restraint?Economic and regulatory policies fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive and Legislature?Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is confined to examining legality of decision-making process and not the merits or wisdom of policy decisions?Interference declined.

Summary: Spousal abuse constitutes an offence implicitly recognized under the Pakistan Penal Code.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Constitutional jurisdiction is not to be exercised as a court of first appeal where the legislature has already provided a complete, adequate and efficacious remedial mechanism.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The concept of guardianship under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 is not intended to vindicate parental rights but rather to secure the welfare and protection of the mentally disordered individual.