Summary: Defination of a 'workman'---The primary question addressed was whether a postman falls under the definition of a civil servant as per the Civil Servants Act, 1973, granting them the right to seek remedies before the Service Tribunal.The definition of "civil servant" under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 was explored, including its sub-clauses and exclusions. It was noted that the Act applies to civil servants across all locations, with specific exclusions such as workers defined in the Factories Act, 1934. The analysis focused on determining whether a postman qualified as a "worker" or "workman" based on definitions from the Factories Act, 1934 and the Workmen?s Compensation Act, 1923. It concluded that a postman did not meet the criteria set by these definitions.The evolution of the Post Office Department was outlined, from its historical background to its transition into an independent entity under various ministries. The argument revolved around whether the status change affected a postman's classification. The interpretation of the Civil Servants Act's objectives and the Workmen?s Compensation Act's purposes were compared, highlighting their differing focuses.The text ultimately asserted that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 applied to postmen, as they were categorized as "workmen." The Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010's provisions were deemed repugnant and void in this context, as they conflicted with federal legislation. The decision concluded that postmen had rights under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and were subject to the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The judgment held significance in clarifying the legal position of postmen in terms of employment and related rights.

Summary: Bail Denied--the truck was intercepted by the police, leading to the discovery of 6000 grams of cannabis and a sum of Rs.105,000. As the investigation progressed, it was revealed that one of the individuals had provided a false identity, which was later corrected. Subsequent searches uncovered additional concealed caches of cannabis hidden within the vehicle.The case involves multiple recoveries and discoveries from the same vehicle, which led to the registration of several First Information Reports (FIRs) to cover the entirety of the incident. The complexity of the case was highlighted by the petitioners' counsel, who argued that the multiple recoveries were a sham exercise.After reviewing the records and hearing arguments, the court stated that a considerable amount of cannabis was found hidden in various parts of the vehicle, requiring piecemeal disclosures and meticulous investigative efforts, including the use of steel cutters. The court noted that due to the nature of the concealed caches, it was not feasible for the police to conclude the investigation in a single instance. The court found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the recoveries and concluded that the material collected, along with witness statements, clearly implicated the individuals under section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. As a result, the court dismissed the petitions, declining to grant leave for further action.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a civil revision petition challenging the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court, which set aside the trial court’s decision that awarded the petitioner a share in the compensation of Rs. 2,000,000 announced by the Government of Balochistan for the legal heirs of his deceased brother, Din Muhammad. The petitioner contended that he, being the real brother of the deceased, was entitled to a share of this compensation. -----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation amount announced by the Government of Balochistan for the legal heirs of Din Muhammad falls under Tarka (estate) and can be claimed as a legitimate right by the legal heirs. -----2- Whether the appellate court’s decision to deny the petitioner a share in the compensation was correct under the law. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court ruled that the compensation amount does not fall under Tarka, which refers to the estate or property left behind by a deceased person. Citing previous judgments by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the court explained that Tarka includes only the deceased’s movable or immovable properties and assets that the deceased had control over during their lifetime. In contrast, compensation granted by the government, which is a form of financial aid or concession, does not constitute Tarka and cannot be claimed as a legitimate right by the legal heirs. The court held that the appellate court's decision was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any legal irregularities. Consequently, the civil revision petition was dismissed, and the appellate court's decision was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas, PLD 1991 SC 731 – Compensation does not fall within the definition of Tarka and cannot be claimed as a matter of right by legal heirs. Dr. Safdar Hussain and another v. Flt. Lt. Nadia Latif and others, 2014 YLR 1553 – Clarifies the distinction between Tarka and posthumous grants or compensations which are payable to nominees or specific beneficiaries.

Summary: Background: Two writ petitions were filed seeking directions for the Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (USCP) to permit the petitioners to join their duties and release their salaries. Both petitioners were previously convicted by the Accountability Court but were later acquitted by the High Court of Sindh. Despite their acquittal, USCP did not allow them to resume their duties, leading to these petitions. ----Issues: 1- Whether the writ petitions are maintainable given that the service rules governing the petitioners' employment are non-statutory. 2- Whether the petitioners should be reinstated in their positions with USCP following their acquittal by the High Court of Sindh. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The writ petitions are not maintainable. The court held that the terms and conditions of the petitioners' service were governed by non-statutory rules, making the relationship between the petitioners and USCP one of 'master and servant.' Therefore, the grievances of the petitioners did not fall within the constitutional jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution. As a result, the petitions were dismissed. Both petitions were dismissed as not maintainable. ----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan International Airline Corporation Vs. Tanweer-ur-Rehman (PLD 2010 SC 676) The principle that employees governed by non-statutory rules are subject to the 'master and servant' doctrine. Pakistan Airline Pilots Association Vs. Pakistan International Airline (2019 SCMR 287) Reinforced the 'master and servant' principle for employees not governed by statutory rules. Khalid Zamir Rasid Vs. Province of the Punjab (2021 PLC (C.S.) 994) Distinguished between writ petitions filed by third parties and employees regarding terms and conditions of service. Noor Ullah Saeed Vs. Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (Writ Petition No.3293/2021) Held that a writ petition by a USCP employee was not maintainable due to non-statutory service rules. Muhammad Mubeen-Us-Salam Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 602) Established that non-statutory regulations lead to a 'master and servant' relationship. Muhammad Idrees Vs. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 68) Reinforced that non-statutory service regulations preclude constitutional jurisdiction for employee grievances.

Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 389/2021 dated 01-06-2021 U/s 406 PPC. P.S Ramna, Islamabad.

Summary: 265-J Cr.P.C: Statement under section 164 Cr.P.C admissible. The statement of a witness duly recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C if it was made in the presence of the accused and if he had notice of it and was given an opportunity of cross examining the witness may, in the discretion of court, if such witness is produced and examined, be treated as evidence in the case for purposes subjects to the provisions of the evidence act.

Summary: We do not find any necessity of an independent license from the federalgovernment in presence of Import Policy Order, 2016 w.e.f. 14.6.2018 followedby Import Policy Order, 2020. The Import Policy Order, 2016 in terms of thesubject in hand was amended by virtue of SRO No.772(1)/2018 on 14.6.2018which provides that the individual license holders or arms dealership licenseholders [as issued by Home Department, Province of Sindh] are allowed toimport arms and ammunition. It was clarified by Federal Government, Ministryof Commerce & Textile vide letter dated 06.09.2019 that the import of arms andammunition does not require any import authorization from the CommerceDivision Islamabad after issuance of SRO No.772(I)/2018 dated 14-06-2018.For convenience and ready reference, text of [i]. Letter dated 06.09.2019, [ii].Section 6(1) and [iii]. Entry No.62 Part I of Appendix B of IPO, 2020---Section 4 of ibid Act 2013 is related to the license for the manufacture/sale of arms andammunition which is not the case here. Section 5 deals with the import, exportand transportation which for all intent and purposes means import and exportwithin the province of Sindh and we, while read it down, do not find it to be ultravires to the Constitution. It primarily concerns with the person who is brininginto and taking out of Sindh or any of its districts, arms, ammunition or militarystores of a firearm or convert an imitation firearm into a firearm unless a licensehas been issued in accordance with the provisions and rules thereunder.Similarly, in section 9&10 the words import and export are in relation to brininginto and taking out of the province of Sindh and any of its districts and it doesnot mean import of any arms and ammunition from outside the country which isan independent subject of the federal government hence, we read down theseprovisions to be within frame of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and are not ultra viresthe Constitution.