Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009-------R. 22---Balochistan Service Tribunal Act (V of 1974), S.3---Constitution of Pakistan,Arts.199 & 212---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Civil service---Deputationist---Transfer of employee---Terms and conditions of service---Scope---Remedy for the civilservants/petitioners would lie with the Authority and also before the Service Tribunal if anyterms of their service had been violated---High Court had no jurisdiction in the matter---Civilservants/petitioners had not availed the remedy under the law and rules---Constitutional petition,therefore, was not maintainable---Policy governing terms and conditions of deputation of civilservants had not been followed by the authorities rather they remained silent having knowledgeof illegality---Borrowing authority was empowered to take disciplinary action against the civilservant on deputation---Lending authority being parent department could initiate proceedingsagainst the accused civil servant under the rules governing the deputationist in its parentdepartment---Both the borrowing and lending authorities despite having knowledge that initialappointment of deputationist was illegal and bogus kept silent for a considerable period which was objectionable---High Court passed direction that there should be no extension in the periodof deputation and deputationist should be repatriated to their parent department without any lossof time---Parent department of the deputationist was directed to take disciplinary action not onlyagainst them but also against the persons responsible of their appointment and also for theirtransfer and posting on deputation---Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940): ---Ss. 30, 33 & Preamble Arbitration award—Objections thereto—Scope and jurisdiction of courts—Maintainability of objections and allegations of misconduct against the arbitrator. An appeal was filed under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the dismissal of objections to an arbitration award. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under sections 30 and 33 is limited to examining whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings. It was held that courts cannot act as appellate bodies to reappraise evidence or review the merits of the arbitrator’s findings unless an error of law or fact is apparent on the face of the award. ----Cited Cases: Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Mustafa Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2003 SC 301 Federation of Pakistan v. Joint Venture Koeks K.G./Rist PLD 2011 SC 506 Union of India v. M/s Sohan Singh & Co. AIR 1989 J&K 14 (b) Limitation: ---Notice of claim—Objections raised for the first time during arbitration proceedings—Effect. The objection regarding the claim being time-barred was dismissed on the ground that it was not raised in the reply to the statement of claim before the arbitrator and was introduced for the first time during evidence. The court held that such objections must be raised clearly and timely before the arbitrator; otherwise, they cannot be entertained later. Further, even if a claim is barred by time, the award based on such a claim is not rendered a nullity. ----Cited Cases: Andison Co-operative Industries Ltd. v. Nazir Ahmad Cheema 1970 SCMR 531 Gujrat W.S. & S.B. v. Unique Erectors (P) Ltd. AIR 1989 SC 973 (c) Misconduct of arbitrator: ---Definition and scope—No misconduct found in the proceedings. The appellant alleged misconduct on the part of the arbitrator for not addressing questions of limitation and maintainability. The court observed that misconduct in arbitration does not necessarily imply fraud but includes neglect of duties. In the present case, the arbitrator addressed all legal and factual issues and followed due process. Mere disagreement with the findings of the arbitrator or an erroneous decision does not amount to misconduct. ----Cited Cases: Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal AIR 1989 SC 1263 Superintending Engineer, Somasila Project v. R. Ramana Reddy AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 283 (d) Arbitration proceedings: ---Technicalities—Role of courts in arbitration disputes. Courts are not to interfere with the arbitrator’s findings unless there is a blatant error or misconduct. Parties who voluntarily submit to arbitration must adhere to the arbitrator’s decision. Courts cannot reappraise evidence or disturb findings merely because they would have arrived at a different conclusion. ----Disposition: The appeal against the dismissal of objections to the arbitration award was found to be without merit and was dismissed by the Islamabad High Court.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.