Summary: Labour Court and NIRC to holistically look at all the relevant evidence to determine the workman status before assuming jurisdiction --- The Petitioner-Bank argues that the Respondent, who held managerial roles, does not qualify as a workman under the Industrial Relations Act of 2012. The court emphasizes the need for evidence to establish the nature of work and duties performed by the claimant. It reviews documents presented by both parties, highlighting that the Respondent's duties were managerial and administrative.The court criticizes the lower courts for not adequately examining the evidence and relying on the Respondent's inability to hire or fire as the sole criterion for workman status. It emphasizes that the determination of work status depends on the nature of duties and functions performed. The court concludes that the Respondent failed to establish his workman status through evidence.Consequently, the petition is converted into an appeal, and the impugned judgments of the High Court and NIRC are set aside. The court emphasizes the importance of considering all evidence and adhering to established principles in determining workman status.

Summary: Background:General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, the appellant, was convicted by a Special Court on December 17, 2019. He had the right to appeal against his conviction under section 12(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976. However, when the criminal appeal against his conviction was filed on January 16, 2020, it was not numbered by the Institution Officer of the Supreme Court due to the appellant's failure to surrender himself, as per the proviso to rule 8 of Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Consequently, a Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M. Appeal No. 6/2020) was filed against this office objection on February 14, 2020.---Issues:Whether the failure to number the criminal appeal due to the appellant's non-surrender was justified.Whether the delay in fixing the C.M. Appeal for hearing constitutes a violation of the appellant's right to appeal.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Chief Justice, Qazi Faez Isa, observed that the appellant had the right to appeal against his conviction within thirty days of the passing of the judgment, as stipulated by the relevant law. The delay in numbering the criminal appeal due to the appellant's failure to surrender was not justifiable, and the appellant cannot be faulted for the inordinate delay in the process. The Court emphasized that no one should suffer due to the Court's inaction. Additionally, an appeal is the right of every convict. Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6/2020 was allowed, and the unnumbered criminal appeal was ordered to be numbered. The record of the Special Court was summoned to be put up along with the appeal for a hearing in Court. The Chief Justice further directed that the appeal be fixed in Court on November 21, 2023, along with other connected petitions.---Citations/Precedents:Benazir Bhutto v State (1999 SCMR 1619)Pakistan v General Public (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 6)

Summary: Background:This set of civil miscellaneous applications (CMAs) arose in the context of a high-profile legal proceeding against General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others. The applications were submitted by various legal entities and individuals, including the former President of the Lahore High Court Bar Association, the Pakistan Bar Council, the Sindh High Court Bar Association, and an advocate of the Supreme Court. These applications challenge the jurisdiction and decisions of the Lahore High Court regarding a trial involving General (Retd.) Musharraf that was conducted by a Special Court in Islamabad. The Lahore High Court's ruling was perceived to overstep its jurisdiction, leading to appeals to the Supreme Court for rectification.---Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the trial of General (Retd.) Musharraf.Whether the Lahore High Court had constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue the judgment it did.The validity and legality of the Lahore High Court?s judgment concerning the constitutional and statutory frameworks.The appropriateness of the Lahore High Court assuming jurisdiction that allegedly vested exclusively in the Supreme Court.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court identified substantial legal questions concerning the jurisdiction and decisions of the Lahore High Court. The Court allowed the applications, directing that the petitions be numbered and notices be issued to the respondents, excluding respondent No. 1, General (Retd.) Musharraf, who had since passed away. The legal heirs of General (Retd.) Musharraf were allowed to join the cases. The records and office files from the Lahore High Court were requisitioned for review in a hearing scheduled for 21 November 2023.----Citations/Precedents:Lahore High Court Bar Association v. General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf, 2019 SCMR 1029.Pervez Musharraf v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2020 Lahore 285.Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act, 1976, particularly section 12 detailing the jurisdiction of special courts.

Summary: Background:The petitioners, Javed Hameed and others, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court which upheld the dismissal of their suit by the trial court. The trial court had closed their side due to repeated failures to present evidence. The suit, initiated in 2009, sought to contest the possession of certain land. The High Court's decision, dated 3 May 2017, affirmed the trial court?s dismissal, which the petitioners sought to appeal in the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the petitioners were given adequate opportunity to present evidence in the lower courts.Whether the petitioners? continuation of litigation constituted an abuse of the court process.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners were provided multiple opportunities to present their case over nearly seven years but failed to do so. The Court found that the petition was frivolous and constituted an abuse of the legal process, primarily aimed at maintaining illegal possession of land. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of preventing such misuse of the judicial system, which infringes upon the legitimate rights of property owners.The Court dismissed the petition, declined leave to appeal, and imposed a substantial cost of one million rupees on the petitioners. This cost was made a charge on the petitioners' property until paid. The Court also directed the petitioners to hand over peaceful possession of the land to the respondents and instructed relevant revenue authorities to rectify the revenue records accordingly.---Citations/Precedents:Article 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan, concerning the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.General principles of justice regarding the abuse of court processes and the imposition of costs to deter frivolous litigation.---Quote:The impression must be corrected that through prolonged litigation the land of others can be retained. Costs of one million rupees imposed.

Summary: Background:The case involves two appeals, C.A. No. 17-Q and Civil Petition No. 257-Q of 2023, which were filed against the judgment dated 20.06.2023 of the High Court of Balochistan, Sibi Bench. The appellants/petitioners challenged the decision of the High Court regarding the ownership of certain land parcels.---Issues:Whether the appellants/petitioners had valid ownership claims over the disputed land.Whether the sale transactions of the land parcels in question were valid.Whether the High Court's judgment was legally sound and based on sufficient evidence.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, comprising Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan, Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik, and Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, dismissed both appeals after careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented. The Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, which declared the petitioners as owners of certain land parcels and directed the respondents to hand over possession to the petitioners. The Court found that the sale transactions of the disputed land were void due to the respondents being minors at the time of the alleged sales. Additionally, the Court noted the appellants' failure to provide sufficient evidence to support their ownership claims. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision as legally sound and based on cogent reasoning.---Citations/Precedents:Abdul Rasheed through L.Rs. and others v. Manzoor Ahmed and others (PLD 2007 SC 287)Muhammad Muneer v. Mst. Feezan (PLD 2021 SC 538)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending