Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 30.10.2021 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in C.P. No.631 of 2021). (a) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)--- ----S. 4---Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974), S. 2(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212---Employees of Balochistan Secretariat Service---Matter concerning terms and conditions of service- --Ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Questions and grievances relating to transfer and postings of a civil servant fell within the ambit of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and thus were within the exclusive domain of an administrative Tribunal established under the command of Article 212 of the Constitution---In the present case, the respondents (employees of Balochistan Secretariat Service) were asserting a right which fell within their terms and conditions of service---They were admittedly civil servants within the meaning of the said expression as defined under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('Act of 1974')---There was nothing on record to show that the respondents had availed the departmental remedies provided under the law---It was mandatory for them to have agitated the grievance in the manner prescribed under the scheme of law applicable to a civil servant under the Act of 1974 and the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 ('the Tribunals Act)---Moreover, they had explicitly stated in the memorandum of the petition that the same matter was challenged and it was pending before the Tribunal---Objection regarding maintainability of the petition and its adjudication under Article 199 of the Constitution was raised by the Government but it was not adverted to by the High Court---Respondents were attempting to achieve an object which was not justiciable before the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution---Bar under Article 212 had ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court---Declaration made by the High Court was, therefore, not sustainable---Matter was already pending before the Tribunal and thus the latter had the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it---Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, and the impugned judgment was consequently set aside. Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department and others 1997 SCMR 169 and Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 212---Civil service---Matter concerning terms and conditions of service---Bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution---Scope---Exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the bar contained under Article 212 are of such a nature that that they are attracted even if the grievance arises from an order which may involve questions of mala fide, coram non judice or having been passed without jurisdiction---Civil servant cannot bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by adding a ground of violation of fundamental right(s)---Service Tribunal will have exclusive jurisdiction in a case founded on the terms and conditions of service even if it involves the question of violation of fundamental rights---Service Tribunal will be vested with jurisdiction even where the case involves the vires of a statutory rule or notification---If a statutory rule or notification adversely affects the terms and conditions of a civil servant the same will be treated as a final order for the purposes of the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal. Syed Arshad Ali and others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. and others 2008 SCMR 314; Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54; Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280; Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Munir and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1371; Noor Badshahd Khattak v. Government of NWFP and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1084 and I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others 1991 SCMR 1041 ref. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 5795 of 2021). Ayaz Khan Swati, Additional Advocate General, Balochistan for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2-Q of 2022) Nemo for Respondents Date of hearing: 13th December, 2023.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908):----O.XIII, R.1 & R.4; O.VII, R.14; O.XVIII, R.4---Documentary evidence---Admissibility---Procedure---Failure to prove documents through witnesses---Effect---Documents not exhibited through testimony of parties or witnesses---Held, documents merely marked or tendered through counsel’s statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence---Both trial and appellate courts erred by relying on such documents in absence of proper proof and cross-examination---Such practice violates due process and settled evidentiary norms.----Cited Cases:• Federation of Pakistan v. Jaffar Khan PLD 2010 SC 604• Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major (Retd.) Muzaffar Khan Malik PLD 2021 SC 715• Rustam v. Jehangir (deceased) through LRs 2023 SCMR 730• State Life Insurance Corp. v. Javaid Iqbal 2011 SCMR 1013(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984:----Art. 76---Production and proof of documentary evidence---Mandatory legal requirements---Failure to prove documents as per Article 76 renders them inadmissible---Courts below wrongly relied upon marked documents without proof or verification during testimony---Held, such reliance vitiates findings and judgment based thereon cannot be sustained.----Cited Cases:• Fazal Muhammad v. Mst. Chohara 1992 SCMR 2182• Feroz Din v. Nawab Khan AIR 1928 Lahore 432(c) Civil trial---Evidence---Marked vs. Exhibited documents:----Legal distinction---Court held that merely marking documents during counsel’s statement does not substitute proper exhibition through witness testimony---Adverse party must be given opportunity to cross-examine regarding authenticity and relevance of such documents---Failure to follow this procedure violates principles of fair trial and due process.**(d) Civil revision---Remand of case---Improper recording of evidence by trial court---Effect---Where lower courts fail to follow settled legal procedure in recording and appreciating evidence, particularly in regard to documentary proof, remand is appropriate---Held, entire trial vitiated for non-compliance with evidentiary procedure—Case remanded for retrial from stage of recording evidence afresh as per law.----Disposition:Civil Revisions Allowed. Impugned judgments and decrees set aside. Case remanded to trial court for fresh decision after proper recording of evidence. Trial court directed to decide matter expeditiously within six months.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199—Evacuee Trust Property Board—Lease of evacuee trust property—Authority of Minister—Jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib—Validity of orders—Cancellation of lease—Public interest. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequent directions regarding the lease of evacuee trust property to Respondent No.1. The Court held that under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, no provision empowered a Minister to make recommendations for the lease of evacuee property. Any recommendation made by a Minister for allotment or lease of public property without following due legal procedure was held void ab initio and illegal. Further, the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacked jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to direct compliance with an unlawful recommendation. -----Cited Cases: Ch. Munir Ahmad v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 384) Province of Punjab v. District Bar Association, Khanewal (2014 SCMR 1611) American International School System v. Mian Muhammad Ramzan (2015 SCMR 1449) Raja Ali Zaman (decd.) v. Evacuee Trust Property Board (PLD 2022 SC 726) Khuda Bakhsh v. Khushi Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 208) (b) Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975: ----S. 30—Lease of public property—Procedure—Public auction—Recommendations by unauthorized authority—Legality. The lease of an evacuee trust property must be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the 1977 Scheme, which mandate public auction or tender for allotment. Any lease granted on the mere recommendation of a Minister, bypassing statutory procedures, is void and unenforceable. The Court held that public property cannot be alienated arbitrarily or on discretionary recommendations without adhering to the statutory requirements. ----Cited Cases: Rehmatullah v. Saleh Khan (2007 SCMR 729) Hameedullah v. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara (1997 SCMR 855) Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 SC 641) (c) Administrative Law: ----Wafaqi Mohtasib—Jurisdiction—Direction to comply with Minister's recommendation—Scope of powers under Article 9 of the Ombudsman Order, 1983. The Wafaqi Mohtasib does not have jurisdiction under Article 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 to enforce compliance with recommendations made by a Minister if such recommendations are beyond statutory authority. The jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib is restricted to cases involving maladministration, and the allocation or lease of public property under statutory schemes does not fall within its purview. ----Cited Case: Master Chiragh Din v. Abdul Hakim (PLD 1974 Lahore 370) (d) Contract Act, 1872: ----S. 23—Public policy—Agreement opposed to law—Void ab initio. An agreement or allotment made in contravention of statutory provisions or public policy is void ab initio under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. The lease of public property without following prescribed legal procedures, even if based on ministerial recommendations, is unenforceable and null from its inception. ----Cited Cases: Hameedullah v. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara (1997 SCMR 855) Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 SC 641) (e) Public Property and State Assets: ----Custodianship of public assets—Role of courts—Obligation to protect public interest. Courts are the custodians of public property and have an inalienable obligation to ensure that public assets are not squandered or misallocated through arbitrary actions or misuse of authority. Any superstructure built on an unlawful lease or allotment must collapse automatically once the foundational order is declared void. ----Cited Cases: Provincial Government through Collector, Kohat v. Shabbir Hussain (PLD 2005 SC 337) Al-Shafique Housing Society v. P.M.A (PLD 1992 SC 113) Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423) (f) Rule of Law: ----Authority and jurisdiction—Exercise within legal limits—Illegality of actions beyond statutory mandate. Authorities and executive offices must act strictly within their statutory jurisdiction. Any act, order, or direction issued beyond the statutory mandate, including ministerial recommendations for lease of public property, is void ab initio. Courts must ensure adherence to statutory procedures to uphold the rule of law and prevent misuse of authority. (g) Disposition: ----Lease declared void—Orders set aside—Direction for compliance with law. The orders of the Wafaqi Mohtasib and subsequent directions were declared without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The lease of the plot to Respondent No.1 was canceled as void ab initio. The petitioner-Board was directed to proceed in accordance with the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and the 1977 Scheme for any future actions. Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; lease canceled.

Summary: If there are reasonable grounds available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of heinous offence then he does not deserve concession of bail even on the ground of juvenility in the light of sub-Section: (6) of Section: 4 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018.

Summary: Background: The appellant, a department, filed an appeal under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the judgment passed by the Lahore High Court on 15.10.2020. The High Court had allowed an insurance appeal filed by the respondent (the widow of the deceased) and decreed her claim along with liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The deceased had purchased an insurance policy from the appellant in 2001 but passed away in a road accident in 2003. Despite the respondent fulfilling the procedural requirements for the claim, the insurance company failed to pay the due amount. The Insurance Tribunal dismissed the respondent's claim in 2015, which led her to appeal to the High Court, where she succeeded. -----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court's judgment misread or ignored the evidence on record. -----2- Whether the High Court failed to consider the provisions of Articles 117, 118, 119, and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. -----3- Whether the burden of proof to establish the cause of death was improperly shifted to the insurance company. -----4- Whether the High Court's decision was in line with established principles of insurance law. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. It held that the insurance company failed to dispute the validity of the death certificate and other official documents. The High Court had properly evaluated the legal and factual aspects of the case, concluding that the respondent was entitled to the insurance claim. The Court also noted that in cases of accidental deaths, post-mortem examinations are often avoided by legal heirs. The appellant, as the insurer, had the responsibility to ensure a post-mortem was conducted if deemed necessary. The appellant's failure to make the due payment in compliance with Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, resulted in the imposition of liquidated damages. -----Citations/Precedents: Khurshid Ali and 6 others v. Shah Nazar (PLD 1992 SC 822) Articles 117, 118, 119, and 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000

Summary: Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----Ss. 44 & 47(5)---Payment of Wage Act (IV of 1936), S.15---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope- --Respondents / workmen were allowed recovery of their wages---Petitioner / employer was aggrieved of revisional jurisdiction exercised by Labour Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Labour Court constituted under S. 44 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, is empowered to exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, or any other law such as Payment Wages Act, 1936---Labour Court exercises jurisdiction over disputes beyond the purview of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010---Labour Court under the command of S. 17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is competent to hear appeals against Authority constituted under S. 15 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936---Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal constituted under S. 47 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, exercises both appellate and revisional powers with respect to orders passed by Labour Court subject to various provisions of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010---There is no bar upon any party in laying information before Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in the form of a Revision Petition not as a matter of right but in the discretion of Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which in turn may decide to assume revisional jurisdiction depending upon facts and circumstances of each case warranting exercise or otherwise of revisional jurisdiction---If Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal exercises its revisional powers, the Tribunal acts within its lawful revisional jurisdiction to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by Labour Court---Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had revisional power with respect to an order passed by Labour Court in appeal preferred under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936---Mere signing of unilaterally prepared 'Final Settlement Forms' by respondents / workmen could not be regarded as final settlements in absence of their free consent---Respondents / workmen promptly agitated their grievances and were still pursuing the same---Mere receipt of partial amounts based upon calculations of petitioner / employer did not place any bar upon respondents / workmen to invoke law for redressal of their grievances---High Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by for a below as there was no illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional defect--- Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Habib Bank Ltd. through President and 2 others v. Authority under Payment of Wages Act and another 2016 PLC 61; Marhaba Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and others (W. P. No. 21196 / 2016); Muhammad Hussain and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Chairman, Railway Board Lahore and others PLD 1991 SC 385; Jang Group of Newspapers Limited and others v. Presiding Officer and others (W.P. No. 10067 / 2017); Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Member, NIRC and others 2014 SCMR 535; Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others PLD 2016 SC 712; Khan Bahadur Khan v. Khan Malook Khan PLD 2022 SC 482 and Messrs Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited v. Muhammad Javed Iqbal and another 1986 SCMR 1071 ref. ------ Background: The petitioners challenged judgments dated 20.03.2023 by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLAT), Lahore, which enhanced the claims of the respondents under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The respondents, employees of the petitioner company, had filed claims before the Authority under Section 15 of the Wages Act for recovery of deducted wages. After partial relief from the Authority, the parties appealed to the Labour Court, which dismissed the appeals. Subsequently, the respondents filed revision petitions before PLAT, which enhanced their claims, prompting the petitioner to file writ petitions. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether PLAT has the jurisdiction to entertain revision petitions under Section 47(5) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (PIRA), regarding orders passed by the Labour Court under Section 17 of the Wages Act. ------- 2) Whether the impugned judgments by PLAT were illegal or suffered from any jurisdictional defect. ------- 3) Whether the respondents were entitled to additional payments despite signing "Final Settlement Forms." ------- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Jurisdiction of PLAT: The Court held that PLAT had jurisdiction under Section 47(5) of PIRA to revise orders passed by the Labour Court, including those under Section 17 of the Wages Act. The Court explained that PIRA's broader scope allows the Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction over disputes arising from other laws, including the Wages Act. Therefore, PLAT could lawfully exercise revisional powers to correct the legality or propriety of the Labour Court's orders, as established in Muhammad Hussain vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1991 SC 385). ------- Legality of PLAT Judgments: The Court found no illegality or jurisdictional defects in PLAT’s judgments. PLAT had appropriately scrutinized the evidence, including the respondents' service certificates and other records, which were not effectively disproven by the petitioner. PLAT calculated the respondents' claims based on the length of their service and properly assessed their entitlement to wages, gratuity, and other benefits. The Court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that signing the "Final Settlement Forms" precluded further claims, as the respondents had not freely consented to these settlements. ------- Entitlement of the Respondents: The Court confirmed that the respondents were entitled to the enhanced amounts determined by PLAT. It dismissed the petitioners’ claims that the respondents had accepted full settlement, noting that the employees promptly pursued their legal remedies and that the settlement forms lacked free consent. ------- Outcome: The Court dismissed the writ petitions with costs of Rs. 100,000 for each respondent, to be paid within 30 days. ------- Citations/Precedents: Habib Bank Ltd. vs. Authority under Payment of Wages Act (2016 PLC 61) Muhammad Hussain vs. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1991 SC 385) Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs. Member NIRC (2014 SCMR 535) Messrs Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. vs. Muhammad Javed Iqbal (1986 SCMR 1071) S.M. Rahman & Co. vs. Motabar (PLD 1981 SC 282) Ghulam Qadir vs. Sheikh Abdul Wadood (PLD 2016 SC 712) Khan Bahadur Khan vs. Khan Malook Khan (PLD 2022 SC 482)

Summary: Background: An appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court, which decreed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,128,429.24 filed by the respondent bank. The appellant's petition for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, leading to the decree being passed without a discussion on the merits or recording of evidence by the respondent. ----Issues: 1- Does the Banking Court have the jurisdiction to dismiss a petition for leave to appear and defend for non-prosecution? 2- Should the Banking Court have recorded evidence before passing a decree? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Banking Court did not have the jurisdiction to dismiss the petition for leave to appear and defend for non-prosecution without considering its merits. The court emphasized that Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO, 2001) requires the Banking Court to consider the contents of the plaint, the petition for leave to defend, and the reply thereto to determine if substantial questions of law or fact require evidence. The court found that the Banking Court must apply its mind to the petition for leave to defend, regardless of the defendant’s presence, and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Banking Court for a decision on the petition for leave to appear and defend within 30 days. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Bahawalpur Cotton Company Vs. United Bank Limited, 2023 CLD 1116 Oil and Gas Development Company Limited Vs. Muhammad Ilyas Mian, 2018 CLC 1666 Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) Vs. Mst. Naima Ayub, 2013 CLC 1191 Abid Aziz Khan Vs. Bank of Punjab, 2007 CLD 997 Syed Asad Abbas Vs. Allied Bank of Pakistan, 2006 CLD 79 Syed Rashid Hussain Vs. Bank of Punjab, 2005 CLD 1823 National Bank of Pakistan Vs. Messrs ARK Garments Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director, 2015 CLD 179 Ghulistan Textile Mills Limited Vs. Askari Bank Ltd., 2013 CLD 2005 Messrs United Bank Limited Vs. Banking Court No.II, 2012 CLD 1556 United Bank Limited Vs. Mehmood Ilyas Khan, 2012 CLD 1372 Admore Gas (Pvt.) Limited Vs. Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited, 2013 CLD 423 Dr. Jamil Masood Usmani Vs. Messrs Askari Bank Limited, 2016 CLD 387 Askari Leasing Limited Vs. Sher Bahadur, 2011 CLD 1186 Faysal Bank Limited Vs. National Electric Company Pakistan and others, 2023 CLD 879

Summary: On 13th of December 2023, the Supreme Court of Pakistan temporarily suspended the order that declared civilian trials in military courts under certain clauses of the Army Act as being ultra vires the constitution, subject to the condition that no final judgment would be passed against the 103 accused by the military courts until the next date of hearing --- the impugned order pertains to the decision of the bench on 23.10.2023 that declared clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Army Act (in both of its subclauses (i) & (ii)), and subsection (4) of Section 59 of the said Act as being ultravires the Constitution. Next date of hearing set to be third week of January 2024 --- applications related to live streaming and reconstitution of benches to be decided on the next date of hearing.