Summary: (a) Industrial Relations Law—Limitation for Filing Grievance Petition:----Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO 1969), S. 25-A—Limitation period for grievance petitions—Effect of delayed grievance notice—Employee’s failure to act within prescribed timeThe respondent-employee was dismissed from service in 1976 and issued a grievance notice after 22 years in 1997, followed by a grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Supreme Court held that under Section 25-A of IRO 1969, an employee must file a grievance within the prescribed time, which cannot be extended indefinitely. The court ruled that merely sending repeated letters to the employer after the limitation period had expired does not revive the cause of action. Neither the Labour Court nor the High Court provided legal justification for condoning such an excessive delay. The judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the grievance petition on grounds of limitation, was restored.----Cited Cases:• M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana (AIR 2000 SC 168)(b) Labour Courts—Jurisdiction and Expeditious Adjudication:----Purpose of time limitations in industrial disputes—Obligation of Labour Courts to resolve cases swiftlyThe Supreme Court emphasized that labour cases must be decided expeditiously and without unnecessary delay. The Industrial Relations Acts of Pakistan's provinces and IRO 1969 all set strict time limits for filing grievances and obtaining relief. The Court noted that while legislation mandates decisions within seven to ninety days, Labour Courts and tribunals often fail to adhere to these deadlines, resulting in prolonged litigation and financial hardship for employees. The judgment stressed that Labour Courts must adopt case management strategies to prevent delays and ensure timely justice.----Cited Statutes:• IRO 1969, S. 25-A• Industrial Relations Act, 2012, S. 33• Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, S. 33• Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, S. 34• Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, S. 41• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010, S. 37(c) Law of Limitation—Effect of Delay in Filing Claims:----Limitation laws—Legal consequences of prolonged inaction—Doctrine of “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt”The Court reaffirmed the principle that law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights (Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt). It ruled that statutes of limitation must be strictly applied, and a belated grievance notice cannot restart the limitation period unless justified by compelling reasons. In this case, the employee waited 22 years to invoke legal remedies, showing a lack of diligence, and provided no plausible justification for the delay. The Supreme Court held that allowing such claims would misuse judicial resources and disrupt legal certainty.----Cited Principles:• Doctrine of Limitation—Leges vigilantibus non dormientibus subserviunt• Doctrine of Delay and Laches(d) Employer’s Authority in Dismissal Cases:----Standing Orders 15(4) of West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968—Requirement for charge-sheet issuanceThe respondent argued that his dismissal order was illegal because it was issued by an unauthorized officer, and the charge sheet was not issued within one month as required by Standing Order 15(4). The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that even if procedural irregularities occurred, they did not override the law of limitation. Once the time for filing a grievance had lapsed, no further challenge could be entertained.----Cited Law:• Standing Order 15(4), West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968(e) Condonation of Delay—When Allowed?----Failure to seek condonation—Requirement for proving justification for delayThe Court noted that the Labour Court and High Court failed to consider limitation issues properly and did not apply legal principles of delay condonation. No formal application was made to condone the delay, and no plausible explanation was provided. The Supreme Court rejected the plea for condonation, reaffirming that mere correspondence with the employer after expiry of the limitation period does not justify condoning a 22-year delay.----Cited Cases:• Haji Abdul Karim v. Messrs Florida Builders (PLD 2012 SC 247)(f) Final Judgment—Appeal Allowed:----Supreme Court restores judgment of Punjab Labour Appellate TribunalThe judgment of the High Court and Labour Court were set aside, and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal’s order rejecting the grievance petition on grounds of limitation was restored. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory limitation periods must be respected, and failure to act within the prescribed time bars relief.----Disposition:Civil Petition converted into appeal—Appeal allowed—Labour Court & High Court decisions set aside—Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal judgment restored.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Dismissal in Absence of Employee:----Show cause notice—Service of dismissal order—Right to appeal—ScopePetitioner, a constable in Punjab Police, was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence while he was incarcerated—Held, that petitioner was not served with the show cause notice or dismissal order while in jail, preventing him from filing a departmental appeal within the prescribed time—Tribunal's refusal to condone delay was unjustified as limitation period could not run against an individual unaware of dismissal—Courts must consider circumstances beyond the control of a dismissed employee in determining whether delay should be condoned—Reliance placed on Muhammad Iqbal v. Secretary Establishment Division 2023 SCMR 1195—Appeal allowed, matter remanded to Tribunal for decision on merits.(b) Limitation in Service Appeals – Equitable Consideration:----Condonation of delay—Judicial discretion—ScopePetitioner’s service appeal dismissed by Tribunal as time-barred—Held, that delay in filing an appeal due to circumstances beyond a petitioner’s control should be viewed with a sympathetic and equitable consideration—Petitioner was incarcerated and had no means to file an appeal within time—Tribunal failed to appreciate that limitation in such cases is a mixed question of law and fact—Courts should adopt a liberal approach in service cases where delay is due to procedural lapses rather than negligence—Reliance placed on Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of Punjab 2022 SCMR 1407—Petition converted into appeal and allowed.(c) Right to Fair Hearing in Service Matters:----Dismissal without due process—Service Tribunal’s duty—ScopePetitioner was dismissed from service through an ex-parte order without being given an opportunity to defend himself—Held, that Service Tribunal failed to perform its duty as a fact-finding forum by not considering whether petitioner was ever served with notice or had an opportunity to appeal—The discretion of courts must be exercised in favor of ensuring justice rather than perpetuating procedural injustice—Reliance placed on Ali Haider v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 SCMR 895—Matter remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration on merits.(d) Case Law References:• Muhammad Iqbal v. Secretary Establishment Division 2023 SCMR 1195• Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of Punjab 2022 SCMR 1407• Ali Haider v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 SCMR 895

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute concerning the dismissal of a cashier in 1976 for alleged misconduct. The dismissed employee, after 22 years, issued a grievance notice in 1997 and subsequently filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court reinstated the employee without back benefits, a decision later overturned by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The High Court reinstated the employee without back benefits, prompting the employer to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court. The employer argued the petition was barred by limitation under labor laws. -----Issues: 1- Whether the grievance notice, issued 22 years after dismissal, complied with the statutory limitation period under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO 1969). ----2- Whether the Labour Court and High Court erred in disregarding the statutory limitation period for filing grievances. ----3- Whether reinstatement without back benefits was justified despite the significant delay in pursuing the claim. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Limitation Period: The Supreme Court emphasized that the grievance notice under Section 25-A of the IRO 1969 must be filed within three months of the cause of action. The 22-year delay was unjustified, and intermittent correspondence by the employee between 1978 and 1995 did not extend the limitation period. --Judicial Errors: The Labour Court and High Court failed to address the issue of limitation adequately. Neither provided reasons for condoning the delay, nor did the respondent provide a valid justification for the lapse. The courts' disregard for statutory deadlines undermined the legislative intent of ensuring timely resolution of labor disputes. --Reinstatement Without Back Benefits: The Supreme Court found that the long delay, combined with the respondent's failure to act within the prescribed period, rendered the High Court's order of reinstatement unsustainable. --Legislative Intent and Expedited Justice: The Court emphasized that labor laws prioritize swift dispute resolution, with specific timeframes for filing grievances to ensure efficiency and avoid prolonged litigation. The civil petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The judgments of the Labour Court and High Court were set aside. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal’s judgment dismissing the grievance as time-barred was restored. -----Citations/Precedents: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO 1969), Section 25-A: Requires grievance notices to be filed within three months of the cause of action. M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Another (AIR 2000 SC 168): "To perpetuate an error is no virtue, but to correct it is a compulsion of judicial conscience." Legal Maxim: "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" (The law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber).

Summary: Conviction upheld---(a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199 & 247; Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018---Jurisdiction of High Court in FATA matters---Scope---Retrospective effect of constitutional amendments---Petitioner challenged his conviction under Regulation 11/40 of the Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901 (FCR), arguing that after the omission of Article 247 through the 25th Constitutional Amendment, the High Court could exercise jurisdiction over FATA matters---Held, the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which abolished Article 247, has no retrospective effect and cannot be applied to matters decided before its enactment---Convictions and orders passed under the FCR prior to the amendment remained final and beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court at the time of their issuance. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 408---Appeal against conviction---Limitation---Effect of delay---Petitioner filed a delayed appeal against his conviction under Regulation 11/40 of the FCR, claiming violation of fair trial rights---Held, remedies under the FCR were not exhausted in a timely manner, and the petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal---The appeal was rightly dismissed by the High Court on grounds of limitation, and the petitioner’s subsequent invocation of constitutional jurisdiction was impermissible. (c) Frontier Crimes Regulations, 1901: ----Self-contained mechanism of remedies---Exclusivity of FCR remedies---Petitioner did not avail the appeals and revisions provided under the FCR framework and instead filed a constitutional petition after considerable delay---Held, remedies provided under the FCR must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction---High Court cannot act as an appellate forum for cases adjudicated under the FCR unless statutory remedies are shown to be inadequate or ineffective. ----Cited Cases: • Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority (PLD 2001 SC 393) • Syed Match Company Ltd. v. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act (2003 SCMR 1493) • Mian Azam Waheed and others v. Collector of Customs (2023 SCMR 1247) • Jameel Qadir v. Government of Balochistan (2023 SCMR 1919) • Muhammad Safeer v. Muhammad Azam (PLD 2024 SC 838) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed, and leave to appeal refused. Conviction and sentence under the FCR upheld due to failure to avail timely remedies and absence of grounds for invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199 & 247 Jurisdiction of High Court in matters arising under Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR)---Petitioner challenged his conviction and sentence under Regulation 11/40 of FCR through constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution, after a delay of more than one and a half years---High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to exhaust remedies available under the FCR and invoked constitutional jurisdiction belatedly---Constitutional remedies could not substitute statutory remedies provided under specific laws unless exceptional circumstances justified such recourse---Omission of Art. 247 through the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018, did not apply retrospectively to validate the High Court's jurisdiction over matters concluded under the FCR before the amendment. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 408---Right of appeal---Limitation Petitioner filed an appeal under S. 408, Cr.P.C., against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by the High Court on grounds of limitation---Petitioner failed to provide a plausible explanation for inordinate delay in filing the appeal or seek condonation under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Held, right of appeal is a statutory right that must be exercised within prescribed limits, and no court can extend jurisdiction to allow appeals beyond the legal framework. (c) Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 (FCR): ----Regulation 11/40---Conviction under tribal council award Petitioner was convicted under Regulation 11/40 of the FCR based on a council of elders' award affirming his alleged involvement in terrorist activities---Held, conviction attained finality when the petitioner failed to utilize statutory remedies available under the FCR hierarchy, including appeals and revisions to the Commissioner and Tribunal---Jurisdiction of High Courts or Supreme Court could not be invoked to bypass statutory forums. (d) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Twenty-fifth Amendment---Retrospective effect The Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2018, which omitted Art. 247 and abolished FATA's unique legal framework, could not be applied retrospectively to challenge final orders issued prior to its enactment---Matters adjudicated under the FCR hierarchy before the amendment remained binding and beyond the High Court's jurisdiction. ----Cited Cases: Mian Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Lahore Development Authority (PLD 2001 SC 393) Syed Match Company Ltd. v. Authority Under Payment of Wages Act (2003 SCMR 1493) Jameel Qadir v. Government of Balochistan (2023 SCMR 1919) Muhammad Safeer v. Muhammad Azam (PLD 2024 SC 838) ----Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused as the case was found meritless.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 19 & 14—Freedom of the press—Limitations—Protection of dignity—Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, but subjects it to reasonable restrictions in the interest of decency, morality, and integrity of the judiciary—Article 14 guarantees the inviolability of the dignity of man—Held, while an independent media is essential for democracy and for exposing wrongdoing, its credibility is undermined when it broadcasts falsehoods or defamatory content—Court emphasized that press freedom does not permit slandering individuals, including judges and courts—Media must uphold truth and integrity to maintain public trust. (b) Contempt of Court: ----False and scandalous allegations against the judiciary—Apology and expiation—Withdrawal of contempt notices—Various television channels aired false and contemptuous content against the Supreme Court and its judges, leading to issuance of contempt notices—Channels submitted unqualified apologies and undertook to broadcast corrective statements during prime time—Held, apology and corrective action serve as mitigation and expiation of contempt—Show cause notices withdrawn, subject to compliance with the undertaking. (c) Ethical Standards for the Media: ----Self-accountability and journalistic responsibility—Court stressed that media organizations should develop internal accountability mechanisms to prevent the dissemination of falsehoods—A credible and responsible press enhances its effectiveness in highlighting corruption and wrongdoing—Held, self-regulation and adherence to journalistic ethics are essential for maintaining public confidence in the media. (d) Islamic Injunctions & Ethical Reporting: ----Prohibition against slander and defamation in Islam—Court emphasized that Islam strictly forbids scandal-mongering, slander, and spreading falsehoods—Qur’anic injunctions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ warn against defamation, gossip, and harm caused by false accusations—Held, broadcasters cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming they merely aired someone else's statements; they must verify the truth before broadcasting defamatory content—Islamic teachings mandate expiation for defamation and backbiting, either through repentance or seeking forgiveness from the wronged party. ----Disposition: Contempt notices withdrawn, subject to compliance with the undertaking to broadcast corrective statements—Court underscores the responsibility of the media to uphold truth and prevent defamation.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit seeking the specific performance of a Sale Agreement dated 24.07.2004 for a 10-Marla commercial plot to be allotted by the Intelligence Bureau Employees Cooperative Housing Society (IB Society) under Membership No.1886. Respondent No.1 disputed the claim, arguing that no commercial plot was ever allotted to him, and that no consideration was paid by the appellant. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit, leading to this appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was entitled to specific performance of the Sale Agreement for a commercial or residential plot. ----2- Whether the appellant proved the payment of consideration. ----3- Whether the appellant’s suit was barred by limitation. ----4- Whether the appellant was entitled to discretionary relief under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's suit. It found that the Sale Agreement described a commercial plot, but no such plot was ever allotted to respondent No.1. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the Sale Agreement was meant for a residential plot or that the description of the plot was an inadvertent mistake. The Court also noted inconsistencies in the appellant’s evidence regarding the payment of consideration. The Sale Agreement showed a contradiction in the amount of consideration stated, and no documentary evidence was provided to prove the payment of Rs.135,000. Additionally, witness testimonies contradicted the appellant's claims. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to establish payment of consideration, and the contradictions in the evidence raised questions about the authenticity of the documents provided by the appellant. The Court observed that the appellant sought to fabricate evidence and misrepresented facts, disentitling him from the equitable relief of specific performance. The Court further directed that the appellant be proceeded against for fabricating false evidence and perjury under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), Sections 191, 192, and 193. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Miskeen vs. District Judge Attock (2020 SCMR 406) Bashir Ahmed vs. Muhammad Isa (2021 MLD 698) Mian Mohammad Saleem and others vs. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others (1987 SCMR 624) Haji Saindino Khan and another vs. Mst. Zaibunnissa through Legal Heirs and another (1991 SCMR 972) Mohammad Riaz and others vs. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605) Inayatullah Khan and others vs. Shabbir Ahmed Khan (2021 SCMR 686) Muhammad Ghaffar (deceased) through LRs and others vs. Arif Muhammad (2023 SCMR 344) Sheikh Akhtar Aziz vs. Mst. Shabnam Begum (2019 SCMR 524) Rao Abdur Rehman vs. Mohammed Afzal (2023 SCMR 815) Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat son of Hidayatullah (PLD 2019 SC 527) Muhammad Amin vs. The State (2004 SCMR 1792) Ghulam Ali vs. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SC 1) Irshad Hussain vs. Ijaz Hussain (PLD 1994 SC 326) Babu Irshad Ahmed vs. Muhammad Ramzan (2002 YLR 2466)

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Ss.3 & 5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Civil revision---Limitation---Civil revisions were filed within time, however, office objections were not removed within the specified time---Effect--- Time consumed in removing the office objections, exclusion of---Applications filed for condoning the delay---Plea of misplacing the files of the cases due to shifting of office by the counsel---Validity---In cases in which certain objections are raised by the office, which render the institution of case in itself invalid or incompetent should be held to be time barred unless the objections or deficiencies indicated by the office are met within the time specified by the office---At the bottom of objection-sheets, received by the petitioner, it was clearly stipulated that the objections were to be removed within three (3) days, however, the petitioner despite receiving the files remained unable to return the same after removing the objections within the given time period---In the applications for condonation of delay it was stated that the counsel was shifting his office, whereas, in the course of argument the said counsel attributed the delay to some fellow advocate---In the entire applications no dates of shifting the office or when the files were traced were given---Delay in re-filing the civil revisions was about fourteen months, thus, such a plea was repelled being implausible and unbelievable that the file could not be located in such a long period---Civil revisions were dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Bank of Punjab and others PLD 2020 SC 736; Saleem Khan v. Mst. Zeenat and others 2023 CLC 1217; Province of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Arif and Company PLD 2022 Lah. 596; Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid 1997 SCMR 1224 and Province of Punjab through District Officer Revenue, Rawalpindi and others v. Muhammad Sarwar 2014 SCMR 1358 rel. (b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)--- ----S. 48---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 12, 39 & 54---Sale deed prior in time---Preference---Appellate court had refused to grant specific performance or to cancel the sale deed in favour of respondent for the reason that the agreement in his favour was prior to the one in favour of the revision-petitioner---Sale deed in favour of the respondent was admittedly registered and there was no denial on the part of the seller vis-?-vis agreement and the sale deed---Civil revision was dismissed. Syed Hashim Raza Shamsi for Petitioner. Muhammad Salman Asif Warraich, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 417(1), (2), (2-A), (3)—Limitation for filing appeal against acquittal—Appeal by State—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S. 48(1); Limitation Act, 1908, Art. 157—Scope—Trial Court acquitted accused under Ss. 32 & 9(c), CNSA, 1997—High Court dismissed State’s appeal solely on grounds of limitation—Held, under S. 417(1), Cr.P.C., no express limitation period is prescribed for appeal by State—Therefore, limitation governed by Art. 157 of Limitation Act, 1908, which provides six-month period for appeals from orders of acquittal—Judgment of High Court was contrary to settled law laid down in The State v. Khalid Hussain Rathore—Dismissal based on incorrect interpretation of limitation provisions—Impugned judgment set aside—Case remanded for decision on merits. (b) Limitation Act, 1908: ----Art. 157—Appeal against acquittal by State—Applicability—Held, appeals by complainants or aggrieved persons under S. 417(2) & (2-A), Cr.P.C. are subject to specific limitations (60 and 30 days respectively), whereas no express limitation applies to appeals by the State under S. 417(1)—Hence, such appeals are governed by Art. 157 of the Limitation Act prescribing six months—Consistent jurisprudence affirms applicability of Limitation Act to criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. (c) Practice and Procedure: ----Remand—Error of law—Where appeal dismissed on erroneous application of limitation provisions, without adjudicating merits, remand is proper remedy—Held, appeal should be considered on merits rather than being dismissed on misconceived procedural ground. Case remanded.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 196---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 33 & 34---Reference---Maintainability---Necessary party---Signatures on Reference---Principle---Penalty imposed by authorities was set aside by Customs Appellate Tribunal on the ground that raw material after conversion into finished goods had already been exported---Respondent / taxpayer assailed the Reference on the plea that liability was against Company whereas Reference was filed against director of Company---Respondent / taxpayer also raised objection against Reference which was not even signed by Collector Customs---Validity---Vakalatnama available on record clearly suggested that the Reference was filed on the instruction of Collector Customs by the counsel representing the Department, however, it was only signed by the counsel but at belated stage---Even if the Collector had failed to sign memo. of Reference but had consented to filing of Reference the same would be in accordance with law provided the counsel representing Department not only had signed the Reference in time but had presented the same before Court within the time stipulated by the law---Appeal was filed by the director and not by the Company, therefore, the company was not a necessary party as the matter only related to adjudication of certain questions of law which arose out of the judgment of Customs Appellate Tribunal---High Court overruled the objection raised by respondent / taxpayer---High Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal as the Reference filed by authorities was barred by limitation---Reference was dismissed, in circumstances. PLD 2020 SC 736; PLD 2010 Lah. 666; KPRA v. Legacy Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Limited, Peshawar 2023 PTD 56; CIR, Faisalabad v. Engineers Associated Precast (Pvt.) Ltd. 2023 PTD 393 and The Director of Customs Valuation v. Hanna Dairies 2023 PTD 68 ref. The Collector of Customs v. Dream Garments 2021 PTD 1042 distinguished. Director, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Limited 2006 SCMR 129 rel. Mukhtar Ahmad Maneri for Petitioner. Barrister Syed Mudassir Ameer for Respondent. Date of hearing: 5th June, 2024.