Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, S. 41--Appointment as helper--Issuance of charge sheet--Allegation of misconduct--Conducting of inquiry--Grievance notice--Dismissal from service--Application--Allowed--Appeal--Challenge to--Bare perusal of grievance notice reflects that same was not issued against orderof dismissal dated 15th July, 2016 rather same was issued against order wherein services of petitioner weresuspended by management; even otherwise, whole record is silent with regard to issuance of grievance noticeagainst dismissal order--Foundation of labour cases mainly revolved around grievance notice and without issuingof grievance notice whole superstructure will automatically falls--Likewise, in case in hand petitioner has failedcomply with mandatory requirements of law, nowhere, petitioner had issued a grievance notice against hisdismissal from service, appellate Court has rightly accepted appeal of employer against petitioner, judgmentpassed by appellate Court is neither perverse nor ridiculous to warrant interference by this Court and ease lawsrelied upon by appellate Court are also relevant for just decision of case--Petition was dismissed. [Pp. 51 & 55]

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 311 & 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-i-amd---Ta'zir afterwaiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd---Fasad-fil-Arz---Scope---Trial Courthaving allowed the legal heirs to compound the offence, convicted appellant under S. 311,P.P.C.---Validity---Appellant was habitual and professional criminal and remained fugitivefrom law and during his absconsion he had committed murder and accordingly another firstinformation report (FIR) was registered against him---Appellant had also committed robberyand yet another FIR was registered---Appellant had further committed the dual murders ofhis father and brother, and had also attempted to murder his brother and caused him seriousbullet injuries for which another FIR was lodged---Behaviour and conduct of appellant in thetrial court remained very harsh---Insertion of expression "Fasad-fil-Arz" in S.311, P.P.C. wasthe requirement of socio-cultural setup and to maintain law and order and to save the civilsociety from deterioration---Where a person within a decade and for no sufficient reasonresorted to took lives of four innocent persons, which included his father and brother, heshould not go scot-free just because the legal heirs had waived and compounded the offence---Appellant was "potential danger" to the community, hence he was rightly declared so bythe Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------Ss. 20, 29, 30 & 33---Arbitration agreement---Award---Objection---Arbitrator wasappointed who submitted his award in the Court wherein principal amount with markup onthe same was granted till payment---Objections raised against the award were rejected and itwas made Rule of the Court---Validity---Court while examining the validity of award couldnot act as a Court of Appeal and make reappraisal of evidence recorded by the arbitrator inorder to discover the error or infirmity in the award unless such error or infirmity was on therecord---Award, in the present case, was based on documentary evidence which did notrequire reappraisal of evidence---No infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned award---Nothing was on record with regard to misconduct of arbitrator---Arbitrator had no authorityto grant any markup on the principal amount from the date of award till payment---Markupwith effect from the date of award till realization of principal amount awarded by thearbitrator was without competence---Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.PLD 2011 SC 506; PLD 2003 SC 301; 2002 SCMR 366; 1983 SCMR 718 and 1981CLC 311 ref.PLD 1996 SC 108 and Ghulam Abbas v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi PLD 1987SC 393 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Muhammad Naeem and Irfan Ali were charged under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, based on a raid where intoxicating substances were allegedly recovered from them. The trial court acquitted them due to the prosecution's failure to establish the presence of a narcotic drug beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the High Court set aside the acquittal and directed a retrial with fresh samples and reports from the Chemical Examiner.---Issues:Whether the High Court had the authority to direct fresh samples and reports at the appellate stage.Whether the prosecution proved the presence of a narcotic drug beyond a reasonable doubt.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the High Court's direction for fresh samples and reports exceeded its lawful powers and violated the principle of fair trial. The prosecution failed to specify the percentage of morphine in the seized substances, rendering the reports inconclusive and unreliable. As a result, the appellants' acquittal by the trial court was restored.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Imran v. State (2011 SCMR 1954)Taimoor Khan v. State (2016 SCMR 621)Dildar v. State (PLD 2001 SC 384)Painda Gul v. State (1987 SCMR 886)State v. Amjad Ali (PLD 2007 SC 85)Mazhar Naeem Qureshi v. State (1999 SCMR 828)Amjad Ali v. State (2012 SCMR 577)Ikramullah v. State (2015 SCMR 1002)State v. Imam Bakhsh (2018 SCMR 2039)---Quote:The requirement of calculating the percentage of narcotic drug in a liquid preparation or mixture is mandatory as per section 3 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (the Act) read with the definitional test under section 2 of the Act. The Reports of the Chemical Examiner fail to mention the percentage of morphine found in the intoxicating substance, leaving it uncertain whether it passes for a narcotic drug. This fatal omission makes the Reports of the Chemical Examiner inconclusive and unreliable to support conviction under the Act. The court being a neutral arbiter has to dispassionately appreciate, appraise, examine and weigh the evidence placed before it, rather than by ignoring the evidence and embarking on a probing journey guided by emotions, sentiments and sense of self-styled justice pegged on the lofty notion of societal reform. The direction of the High Court for obtaining fresh samples of the alleged intoxicating substance and preparing a fresh report of the Chemical Examiner amounts to granting the prosecution a premium on its failure to put up a proper case in the first instance. Such judicial intervention is opposed to the adversary principle and offensive to the fundamental right of fair trial and due process guaranteed under the Constitution.