Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)-------Ss. 2(xxx), 46, 46 (1) & 46(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Dismissal of employee from service on the charge of corruption and embezzlement---Employeefiled departmental appeal instead of grievance notice---Effect---Labour Court accepted thegrievance petition, which decision was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal---Employeewas reinstated with back benefits---Concurrent findings of facts of lower forums---Scope---Contention of the petitioner was that after his promotion to the post of officer Grade-III, he wasno more a worker/workman, therefore, his grievance petition was not competent, nor the LabourCourt had the jurisdiction to entertain the same---Validity---Status of a person depended uponthe work he/she performed in an institution and not upon a grade he/she owned---Person, whowas discharging his duties mainly in a managerial or in administrative capacity, could not betermed as a "worker" or "workman"---"Worker" or "workman" was the one, who was employedin an institution to do skilled, unskilled or clerical work manually---Both the manual and clerical works were more or less the routine works, not requiring any great amount of initiative,imagination, discretion or supervision in discharging the duty---Employee, in the present case,was holding a post, which from its designation appeared to be of a supervisory or managerial innature, but the duties performed by him could not be considered as managerial or administrative,therefore, irrespective of the fact that the employee was an officer Grade-III, he still was a"workman", therefore, his grievance petition before the Labour Court was competent and theforums below had the jurisdiction to entertain the same---Under S.46(1) of the IndustrialRelations Ordinance, 2002, the word "may" had been used, which had given discretion to the"worker/workman" to either approach the employer by way of grievance notice, beforeapproaching the Labour Court or may directly approach the Labour Court through a grievancepetition, therefore, non-issuance of a grievance notice to the employer was not fatal for filing agrievance petition before Labour Court---Mere mentioning of wrong title, i.e. "appeal for reinstatement in the bank service" instead of "grievance notice" had not vitiated the proceedings---High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere in the concurrent findings of factsarrived at by the two competent forums---Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality andirregularity in the judgments of the lower foras---Constitutional petition was dismissed incircumstances.(b) Words and Phrases-------"Worker" and "administration"--- Definition and meaning.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Concurrent findings of facts bylower foras---Effect--- High Court in a constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere in theconcurrent findings of facts arrived by the two competent forums.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.10(a) NAB Ord:Applicability of S.426(2)(B)Cr.PC to the cases registered under NAB ordinance,accused being heart patient(Bail allowed)

Summary: PMDC Regulation 2013:Medical education--unless a student clear all subjects of previous class,cannot promoted to higher class

Summary: Application of Section 426 (2) (B) of CrPC to the cases registered under NAB ordinance barred by law.