Summary: Issue: Whether Mukaram Khan, employed on a daily wage basis since 2016, is entitled to be declared a permanent employee of WAPDA.---Holding: The appeal and the CMA were dismissed, upholding the Single Bench's decision to declare Mukaram Khan a permanent employee.---Reasoning: The commission observed that Mukaram Khan's continuous service since 2016 and the nature of his post warranted permanent employment status under the Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Ordinance stipulates that a workman engaged in work of a permanent nature for more than nine months and having satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months acquires the status of a permanent workman. The commission referenced various Supreme Court decisions supporting the principle that employees serving in a capacity for more than nine months against a regular post should be considered for regularization. The commission found no substantial grounds in WAPDA's appeal to overturn the Single Bench's well-reasoned order.---Significant Legal Principles Applied:Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968: Defines the criteria for a workman to be considered permanent based on the nature of work and duration of service.---Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan et al. vs. Muhammad Sajid and others (2019 PIC [CS] 539): The Supreme Court held that employees working continuously, even with artificial breaks to disrupt service continuity, are performing jobs of a permanent nature and are not serving in casual positions. Such employees are entitled to regularization.---Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others vs. Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547): The Supreme Court declared that employees serving continuously for more than six months are governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and should be considered permanent employees.Abdul Ghaffar vs. President National Bank of Pakistan et al. (2018 PLC [CS] 383): The Court ruled that employees engaged for manual jobs and compensated monthly, who have served for more than one year (or several 8-9 month stints), are entitled to the regularization of their services.Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, DG Khan vs. Muhammad Altaf et al. (2018 PLC [CS] 647): The Supreme Court found that employees working in various capacities for a considerable period, on a daily wage basis, against regular posts, and with artificial breaks in service, are entitled to regularization.Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, DG Khan and another vs. Muhammad Altaf and others (2018 SCMR 325): The Court dismissed an appeal against the regularization of daily wage employees who had served for not less than nine months, noting that the employer had created artificial breaks in service to avoid regularization.These precedents collectively emphasize the judiciary's stance on the rights of employees to be regularized when they have served in positions of a permanent nature for a significant duration, highlighting the principle of fairness and continuity in employment practices.

Summary: Background: Two writ petitions, No. 53/2023 and No. 3452/2023, were filed involving a dispute over land ownership and allotment between WAPDA, Mirpur Development Authority (MDA), and private individuals in the Mangla Dam area of Mirpur, Azad Kashmir. Writ Petition No. 53/2023: WAPDA claimed ownership of the land acquired for Mangla Dam, asserting that the MDA illegally allotted plots on this land without obtaining the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from WAPDA. Writ Petition No. 3452/2023: Private petitioners, who had purchased plots from MDA, alleged that WAPDA was interfering with their construction activities despite having obtained proper allotments and NOCs from relevant authorities. ----Issues: 1- Whether the MDA legally allotted the plots on the land acquired by WAPDA for the Mangla Dam. 2- Whether WAPDA retains ownership and the right to interfere with the plots allotted by the MDA. 3- Whether the private purchasers' rights to the plots are protected and enforceable against WAPDA's claims. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court examined the agreement between WAPDA and the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which stated that the land not required for the Mangla Dam project would revert to the state. It was found that the MDA, acting on behalf of the state, legally allotted the plots to private individuals. WAPDA’s claim of ownership was based on providing funds for the land acquisition. However, the court held that once the land was acquired and the specific purpose (Mangla Dam) was fulfilled, the state retained sovereignty and ownership rights. The court observed that the MDA had the authority to allot the plots and had done so in compliance with legal procedures, including obtaining necessary NOCs. The court dismissed Writ Petition No. 53/2023 filed by WAPDA, holding that WAPDA had no cause of action as it no longer possessed the land. The court accepted Writ Petition No. 3452/2023, restraining WAPDA and other respondents from interfering with the petitioners' lawful possession and use of the plots. ----Citations/Precedents: Agreement between WAPDA and the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (24.06.1967). Judgment in "Department of WAPDA Vs Raja Maroof and others" (18.02.2021).

Summary: (Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973)Wapda employee died during service with eight years and three months service and his widow sought pensionary benefits per provision of Regulation 371-A of Civil Service Regulation.Held: (i) Provisions of Regulation 371-A of Civil Service Regulation, for the purpose of pensionary benefits, would only be taken into account if an employee is otherwise entitled for pension. Husband of the petitioner died before completing his ten years qualifying service for the purpose of pension and the said Regulation cannot automatically overcome the shortfall of qualifying service. (Constitutional petition was dismissed in the circumstances)

Summary: i) Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ii) WAPDA Act 1958(a) PESCO is not a statutory body but was established as an entity/scheme duly recommended by the Water& Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and sanctioned/approved by the Federal Government within the meaning of Section-8 (ii) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 and the same though is performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federal Government but it is a company duly incorporated and registered under the then Companies Ordinance, 1984 and perform all its functions through its Board of Directors, in which neither the Federal Government nor the Provincial Government has any role in implementing its decisions. (b) Employees of PESCO are not governed by any statutory Rules, therefore, any of its employee who is aggrieved of an order effecting his terms and conditions, cannot be challenged before the High Court in a petition filed under Article 199 of The Constitution of Pakistan.(c) In absence of Statutory Rules as in the present case, the relationship between an employee and an employer is governed by the principle of Master and Servant and as such in case of issuance of any order issued by the employer/PESCO a proper remedy with the employee is to approach the Civil Court.(d) A writ petition could only be maintained if the writ petitioner succeeded to establish that his is right duly protected by a legislative instrument and has been violated and thus in absence of any instrument/Rules/Regulations, a writ could neither be entertained nor maintained.(e) Employees of erstwhile WAPDA who have not been absorbed in PESCO and who have been subjected to any of Rules of WAPDA, are civil servants and as such they could approach to Federal Service Tribunal, whereas legal heirs of such late employees could approach to the High Court through a writ petition filed under Article 199 of The Constitution of Pakistan.

Summary: The case revolves around whether the employees of these organisations PESCO (a public limited company) and WAPDA (Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority) should be treated as government employees and entitled to benefits under the Prime Minister's Assistance Package. The counsel for PESCO argues that PESCO's employees cannot be considered government employees unless there is a statutory law or rules classifying them as such. They assert that without such classification, the employees cannot approach the Islamabad High Court for the enforcement of the 2014 Assistance Package. Furthermore, they argue that one of the respondents, Sajeeda Begum, is ineligible for the package because her husband died before the package was granted. The counsel for WAPDA raises similar arguments, stating that WAPDA is a body corporate governed by its own Act and Rules, and it exercises independent authority. They claim that the respondent, Gui Farah Jaan, had already received compensation according to WAPDA's own assistance package and therefore could not seek additional benefits from the Prime Minister's Assistance Package. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents defends the judgments of the Islamabad High Court, arguing that beneficial legislation and policies can apply retrospectively. They rely on previous judgments and contend that the High Court correctly extended the benefit of the 2014 Assistance Package to the respondents. The court examines the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and the relevant laws regulating PESCO and WAPDA. They determine that PESCO's main office is in Peshawar, outside the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, and PESCO's employees are not government employees. Therefore, the Islamabad High Court did not have jurisdiction over PESCO. Regarding WAPDA, the court acknowledges that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court but notes that WAPDA had already provided its own assistance package to its employees. They conclude that WAPDA should have the discretion to decide on financial relief for its employees and that the Islamabad High Court's direction to release funds from the Prime Minister's Assistance Package was not appropriate. In summary, the court determines that PESCO's employees are not government employees and that the Islamabad High Court lacked jurisdiction over PESCO. For WAPDA, the court acknowledges the jurisdiction but finds that WAPDA's own assistance package suffices, and the direction to release funds from the Prime Minister's Assistance Package was unwarranted.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, WAPDA, filed a suit for declaration/possession-cum-perpetual injunction, claiming ownership of land comprising survey No.2, measuring 1 kanal and 15 marla, in Mozia Pootha Behnsi, Tehsil and District Mirpur. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had unlawfully constructed on this land and that the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA) had no authority to allot the land. The trial court dismissed the suit, and subsequent appeals to the District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. This petition for leave to appeal challenges the judgment of the High Court dated February 18, 2021. ----Issues: 1- Whether the land in question was legally owned by WAPDA and whether MDA had the authority to allot it. 2- Whether the District Judge erred by dismissing the appeal without deciding an application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC. 3- Whether the petition for leave to appeal was filed by an authorized and concerned party. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The petitioner argued that the land was acquired for the Mangla Dam Raising Project and is owned by WAPDA, with the Government of AJ&K having only sovereignty rights. The petitioner also highlighted a procedural error by the District Judge in not deciding the application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC. The respondents contended that the petition was filed by an unconcerned person, relying on a previous judgment (civil appeal No.49 of 2013). They argued that there were concurrent findings of fact by all lower courts and that the land, being unutilized, could be repurposed by the Government. The petitioner's counsel rebutted by asserting that the Director Legal was authorized to file the petition, supported by a full Court judgment (2015 SCR 531). The Supreme Court found the issues involved to be of vital importance requiring thorough deliberation and granted leave to appeal. The Court allowed the petitioner's application for amendment to correct the acreage of the land mentioned in the petition. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 1000 as security within 30 days, failing which the leave granting order would be rescinded. -----Citations/Precedents: WAPDA and another v. Raja Maroof and other (civil appeal No.49 of 2013) Full Court judgment reported as 2015 SCR 531

Summary: Background: The petitioner, WAPDA, acquired land from the respondent for the Mangla Dam Raising project. The land, comprising various kinds and used for commercial purposes, was initially compensated at rates ranging from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- per kanal. The respondent filed a reference application seeking a higher compensation rate of Rs. One Crore and ten lac per kanal. The Reference Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8,33,333/- per kanal along with 15% compulsory acquisition charges (CAC). Both parties appealed, and the High Court further increased the compensation to Rs. 10,00,000/- per kanal with 15% CAC. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court erred in enhancing the compensation rate to Rs. 10,00,000/- per kanal. 2- Whether the compensation should be uniform irrespective of the kinds of land acquired. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir converted the petition into a regular appeal and directed the petitioner to deposit security. The Court noted that an appeal against the same impugned judgment was also filed by the respondent, and both cases were to be heard together. ----Citations/Precedents: The appeal filed by the respondent titled "Ch. M. Masoom vs. Collector Land Acquisition" Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2021.

Summary: The case involved the promotion of respondents who were working as Upper Technical Subordinates (UTS) in PESCO. They had filed an appeal for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers/Assistant Managers (BPS-17) under the 5% quota reserved for UTS graduate engineers. However, their appeal was rejected by PESCO, stating that the quota was meant for induction/direct recruitment, not promotion. The respondents then filed a Grievance Petition before the Labour Court, which ruled in their favor, directing PESCO to grant them promotion based on the 5% quota. PESCO appealed this decision to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which also ruled in favor of the respondents. PESCO further challenged the tribunal's decision in the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition, but the high court upheld the previous judgments. In the Supreme Court, PESCO argued that it has its own statutory rules as an autonomous body separate from WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority), its parent department. They contended that the high court failed to consider this aspect and the judgment resulted in a miscarriage of justice. They also questioned the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to strike down a policy or direct PESCO to adopt the rules of another statutory body. The Supreme Court examined the relevant laws and concluded that the power to strike down a policy or executive order lies exclusively with the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Labour Court does not possess such jurisdiction. Additionally, it was determined that the respondents' claim for promotion did not fall within the scope of a "right guaranteed under law" as defined by the KPK Industrial Relations Act. The court clarified that PESCO, as a separate entity, is not obligated to adopt the rules of WAPDA or similar companies. Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated October 23, 2019.

Summary: The dispute arose when the appellants initially advertised vacancies for Junior Engineers on a temporary/ad-hoc basis, but later issued a corrigendum changing the appointment terms from "contract basis" to "ad-hoc basis." The respondents were appointed on this basis, and their employment was extended on an ad-hoc basis. The respondents sought regularization, but their representation was dismissed by the competent authority. The Single Judge accepted their writ petition, setting aside the corrigendum and the dismissal order, and directed the consideration of the respondents' regularization. The appellants contested this decision through the Intra-Court Appeal.The court analyzed WAPDA's authority to frame procedures for employee appointments under the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958. It referred to the Recruitment Policy, which outlined the recruitment process for Junior Engineers. The court found that the respondents were indeed appointed on an ad-hoc basis, as per the advertisement and the committee's decision based on the emergent needs of the department.However, the court noted that the recruitment process, conducted through walk-in interviews, was declared non-transparent and violative of competition rules by a previous judgment (GEPCO vs. Malik Waqas Ahmad and others, PLD 2013 Lahore 339). Legal precedents emphasized the importance of merit, transparency, and fairness in recruitment processes.Furthermore, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Naveeda Tufail and others vs. Government of Punjab (2003 SCMR 291), which emphasized the requirement for ad-hoc employees to be assessed for regularization through appropriate channels.Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of WAPDA, overturning the Single Judge's order and dismissing the respondents' writ petition. The decision highlighted that ad-hoc employees cannot claim extension or regularization without adhering to the prescribed policy. Citing legal precedents such as Abu Bakar Farooq vs. Muhammad Ali Rajpar (2019 SCMR 830), the court emphasized that ad-hoc appointments should not be regularized beyond the specified period without proper procedures. The judgment reflects a commitment to transparency and meritocracy in the recruitment and regularization of employees within WAPDA.

Summary: Order pertains to determination of classes of creditors in context of section 333(1)(c) and 421(1)(i) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and also discuss the circumstances for relinquishment of security, by secured creditors under section 47 of the Insolvency Act, 1920----This case involved a petition by Joint Official Liquidators (JOLs) seeking court approval for further payments of Rs.11 million each to eligible claimants in Categories 1 and 2 of creditors, while reserving equivalent payments for claimants in Category 3. The court examined whether IFC is a secured creditor and the applicability of Section 47 of the Insolvency Act regarding the rights of secured creditors. It is determined that even if IFC were treated as a secured creditor, it has relinquished its security by filing a total claim with the JOLs. The court also addressed the power of the liquidator to make classifications among creditors and pay specific classes in full, referring to Sections 333(1)(c) and 421(1)(i) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It concluded that the proposed classification is justified, considering the diverse interests and urgent needs of different classes of creditors. The objections raised by IFC and WAPDA are overruled, and the court approves the scheme of distribution filed by the JOLs, instructing them to proceed with the distribution of funds according to the approved scheme.