Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Claim of workman for recovery of salary was allowed by the Authority. Prior to filing of appeal against the said order of Authority the aggrieved party was required to deposit the decretal amount before the Authority and get issued certificate to that extent. Proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Act was mandatory and non-compliance of the same would result in dismissal of appeal. ----- (a) Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ---Section 17—Mandatory condition for filing appeals—Deposit of decretal amount** An appeal against an order under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is incompetent without compliance with the mandatory requirement of depositing the decretal amount with the authority and obtaining a certificate to this effect before filing the appeal. The petitioner’s failure to fulfill this condition precedent resulted in the dismissal of their appeal and subsequent revision. Reliance placed on Tehsil Nazim TMA, Okara v. Abbas Ali (2010 SCMR 1437) and Syed Match Company Ltd. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act (2003 SCMR 1493). (b) Civil Procedure—Limitation Act ---Requirement to explain delay—Dismissal of appeal and revision as time-barred** An appeal and revision were dismissed as time-barred due to the petitioner’s failure to provide cogent reasons or explain the delay in filing. The courts reiterated that delay must be justified by explaining each day, as per established legal principles. Reliance placed on Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad v. Controller of Examinations (PLD 2011 SC 174) and Lt. Col. Nasir Malik v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (2016 SCMR 1821). (c) Constitutional jurisdiction ---Scope of interference in appellate and revisional orders** The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of appellate and revisional courts, which dismissed the petitioner’s claims based on failure to comply with statutory conditions and time limitations. The appellate and revisional courts’ decisions were held to be in consonance with the law, leaving no room for constitutional interference. Cited Cases: Tehsil Nazim TMA, Okara v. Abbas Ali (2010 SCMR 1437) Syed Match Company Ltd. v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act (2003 SCMR 1493) Mughal Surgical (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7 (2006 SCMR 590) Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad v. Controller of Examinations (PLD 2011 SC 174) Lt. Col. Nasir Malik v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (2016 SCMR 1821) Disposition: The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit due to non-compliance with the mandatory condition under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act and the petitioner’s failure to justify the delay in filing appeals. No ground for interference in appellate and revisional court orders was made out.

Summary: -----Claim of workman for recovery of salary was allowed by the Authority. Prior to filing of appeal against the said order of Authority the aggrieved party was required to deposit the decretal amount before the Authority and get issued certificate to that extent. Proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Act was mandatory and non-compliance of the same would result in dismissal of appeal. (a) Labour Law: ----Payment of Wages Act, 1936 The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the dismissal of its revision petition by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the respondent, a former employee, under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, seeking unpaid wages and compensation following wrongful dismissal. The petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory condition of depositing the decretal amount before filing an appeal, as required under Section 17 of the Act. Held, the appeal and revision petitions were rightly dismissed by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal due to non-compliance with the conditions set forth in the Act, specifically the requirement for a certificate of deposit before filing the appeal. ----Cited Cases: • Tehsil Nazim TMA, Okara v. Abbas Ali (2010 SCMR 1437) (b) Appellate Procedure: ----Appeals and Revision The Court reviewed the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal and revision petition as time-barred, finding that no valid reason was provided for the delay in filing. The Court emphasized that in appeal and revision matters, every day of delay must be explained, and the petitioner failed to do so. Held, the petitioner's failure to explain the delay in filing the appeal and revision petitions, along with non-compliance with statutory requirements, led to the dismissal of the petitions. ----Cited Cases: • Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad v. Controller of Examinations (PLD 2011 S.C. 174) • Lt. Col. Nasir Malik v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (2016 SCMR 1821) ----Disposition: The writ petition was dismissed, and the application for restoration of the petition was allowed. The dismissal of the appeal and revision by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal was upheld. The application CM No. 7518 of 2017 was disposed of as infructuous.

Summary: In this case, Sahibzada Muhammad Hussain Raza, the petitioner, sought a court direction to the respondents, which includes the Provincial Election Commission, to include his name in the voter list. Additionally, he requested that the respondents issue him nomination papers to contest the upcoming elections as a candidate for the Member of Provincial Assembly (MPA) seat in his constituency (Constituency No. PP-113, Faisalabad).The petitioner, Sahibzada Muhammad Hussain Raza, is from a politically influential family, and his father was a former Minister. His brother, Sahibzada Muhammad Hamid Raza, is a leader of the Sunni Ittehad Council. However, despite being eligible to vote, the petitioner's name was not included in the voter list, which prompted him to file a petition.The petitioner had contacted respondent No. 2 (presumably an official from the Election Commission) on April 26, 2018, and was initially informed that he had a vote in the voter list. However, later, when he checked the voter list, his name was missing. He filed an application on June 5, 2018, before the Provincial Election Commissioner, requesting the inclusion of his vote based on his CNIC, domicile certificate, and family registration certificate. As this application had not been decided, he approached the court by filing this writ petition.The petitioner argued that it was the responsibility of the respondents to include his name in the voter list, especially since other family members were already enrolled voters in the constituency. He mentioned specific sections of the Elections Act, 2017, that empower the Election Commission to amend the electoral roll and enroll eligible voters.On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petitioner had not informed the election commission in a timely manner about his desire to be enrolled as a voter, which was required by Section 39 of the Elections Act, 2017. They also contended that including the petitioner's name at this stage would create logistical issues and burdens on the election commission.After hearing both sides, the court considered various provisions of the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017. The court concluded that the petitioner, being a citizen of the country with a valid CNIC, was entitled to vote and contest elections. The omission to enroll his vote was not solely his fault, and the responsibility also lay with the Election Commission and the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) to ensure accurate data transmission. The court ordered the immediate enrollment of the petitioner as a voter in his constituency and the issuance of nomination forms for the MPA seat without further delay.This order sheet emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all eligible citizens have the opportunity to vote and participate in the democratic process, especially during the election season.

Summary: The central argument is whether writ petitions filed by employees, who joined PTCL after January 1, 1991, are maintainable. The maintainability is determined based on the relevant service rules and regulations.Transfer of Employees: The text discusses how departmental employees were transferred to the Corporation initially and then to PTCL under various legal provisions. It emphasizes that their terms and conditions should not be varied to their disadvantage.Pension Benefits: The argument includes the payment of pensionary benefits, especially to employees who opted for Voluntary Separation Schemes (VSS). It is noted that these employees may not be entitled to the same benefits as ordinary retirees.Shareholders Agreement: Reference is made to the Shareholders Agreement between the Government of Pakistan and Etisalat International Pakistan. The agreement is cited to support the argument regarding the terms and conditions of transferred employees.Applicability of Precedent: The text discusses the applicability of legal precedents, particularly the Iqbal Nasir case, and whether it should be revisited in light of the changing circumstances related to PTCL's control.Ultimately, the text is focused on the legal and regulatory aspects of the employees' rights and benefits, with an emphasis on whether writ petitions are maintainable for employees who joined PTCL after January 1, 1991.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Mere filing of affidavits for establish the plea of alibi would not attract the impression of further inquiry and opinion of the I.O is not binding upon the Court.

Summary: Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder to the concession of bail.

Summary: After hearing both sides and examining the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, the court held that a notification for the constitution of a Single Bench was necessary only under subsection 3(a) of Section 194-C. It was also noted that subsection (4) allowed the Chairman or any other member to dispose of a case sitting singly when certain conditions were met, such as the value of the goods or the amount of duty or tax involved not exceeding five million rupees. This provision did not require the constitution of a Single Bench, and the Chairman could authorize any available member of a Division Bench to handle such cases.The court referenced previous judgments to support its interpretation of the law, including the requirement for the Chairman to exercise due diligence and proper application of mind when entrusting a case to a Single Member. It emphasized that this authority should not be delegated as a routine or clerical matter but should be carefully considered.Ultimately, the court found that the note and entrustment of the case to a Single Bench did not align with the spirit of subsection (4) and were without lawful authority. As a result, the impugned order was declared as having been passed without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the incumbent Division Bench to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the law.