Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an employee of NADRA, filed a complaint before the Federal Ombudsman for Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, alleging harassment by her superiors. During the proceedings, she claimed that the respondents submitted forged and fabricated documents to the inquiry board to implicate her falsely in a medical reimbursement case. The petitioner filed an application under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking action against the respondents for submitting false evidence. This application was dismissed by the Federal Ombudsman on 25.04.2017, leading to the filing of this writ petition challenging that decision. -----Issues: 1- Can the Federal Ombudsman initiate proceedings under Section 476 Cr.P.C. for alleged forged documents? -----2- Do the documents submitted by the respondents before the Federal Ombudsman fall within the scope of Section 476 Cr.P.C. or Section 195 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)? -----3- Was the Federal Ombudsman’s dismissal of the application lawful and justified? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction under Section 476 Cr.P.C.: The court clarified that Section 476 Cr.P.C. applies only to offenses committed in or in relation to proceedings before a Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Court. The Federal Ombudsman is not classified as such a court under the law. Consequently, the Federal Ombudsman lacked the jurisdiction to entertain or act on an application under Section 476 Cr.P.C. --Nature of the Documents: The petitioner’s claim that the documents were forged and fabricated could not be decided at this stage as the main harassment complaint was still under inquiry and not at the stage of evidence. Section 195 PPC, which deals with fabricating false evidence, was deemed inapplicable because the authenticity or falsity of the documents had not yet been adjudicated. --Dismissal of Application: The Federal Ombudsman’s order dismissing the application was upheld as lawful. The court found that the Ombudsman’s reasoning—that the harassment complaint was pending and the authenticity of documents was not yet a matter of evidence—was in accordance with the law. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 476 Cr.P.C.: The provision is limited to offenses occurring in proceedings before Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts. Section 195 PPC: Relates to fabricating false evidence but requires a judicial determination of the falsity of the evidence in question. Federal Ombudsman’s role and jurisdiction are distinct from that of courts, and its powers are confined to handling complaints of workplace harassment.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought to challenge two orders: (1) an order dated 23.01.2017, by the Registrar of Trade Unions dismissing the petitioner’s application to suspend his dismissal order under Section 19(13) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA), and (2) an order dated 27.01.2017, by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) dismissing the appeal against the Registrar’s order. The petitioner, a long-time employee and trade union leader at a bank, alleged that his dismissal on 16.01.2017 was unlawful and part of unfair labor practices. -----Issues: 1- Was the petitioner’s dismissal lawful under the provisions of Section 19(13) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012? -----2- Did the orders by the Registrar and NIRC violate the petitioner’s rights under the IRA? -----3- Was the petitioner entitled to relief through a writ petition while a grievance petition challenging his dismissal was pending before the NIRC? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Applicability of Section 19(13) of IRA: Section 19(13) prohibits the dismissal of trade union officers during referendum proceedings without the Registrar’s permission. The Court found that the referendum proceedings had been stayed on 13.01.2017, meaning they were not pending when the dismissal occurred on 16.01.2017. Hence, Section 19(13) did not apply. --Lawful Disciplinary Action: The petitioner’s dismissal was the culmination of disciplinary proceedings that began in 2010. Injunctive relief previously granted by the NIRC had delayed these proceedings, but they resumed following the dismissal of the petitioner’s grievance petition in December 2016. The Court ruled that the dismissal was a result of lawful departmental proceedings and not a violation of labor protections under IRA. --Alternative Remedy: The petitioner had filed a grievance petition before the NIRC challenging his dismissal. The Court declined to make observations regarding the legality of the dismissal, as it was sub judice before the NIRC. The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the orders of the Registrar and the NIRC, finding no legal infirmity. -----Citations/Precedents: Industrial Relations Act, 2012, Section 19(13): Protection of trade union officers during referendum proceedings.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, an Assistant Director at the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (OPF), challenged: The imposition of major and minor penalties, including removal from service, censure, and withholding of increments, through an order issued by the Managing Director of OPF. The dismissal of his departmental appeal by the Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis. The petitioner argued that the penalties were unfairly imposed and the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. He contended that the inquiry officer initially exonerated him of major charges, but a subsequent de-novo inquiry introduced new charges, leading to his dismissal. -----Issues: 1- Are the OPF Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993, statutory, and can the petitioner invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan? ----2- Were the disciplinary proceedings and penalties imposed on the petitioner lawful and conducted in compliance with service regulations? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of non-maintainability, holding that: Non-statutory nature of regulations: The OPF Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993, were non-statutory and did not have the force of law. As OPF is a company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and not a statutory body, its regulations pertain to internal management and control, making the petition inadmissible in constitutional jurisdiction. Precedents on non-statutory rules: The court relied on multiple precedents affirming that writ petitions challenging employment matters of entities governed by non-statutory regulations are not maintainable. Availability of alternate remedy: The petitioner was advised to seek redress through appropriate forums for non-statutory service matters. The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents: Tanvir Iqbal Siddiqi vs. Principal, OPF Girls College, Islamabad (1994 SCMR 958): Held that OPF is not a statutory body, and writ petitions challenging its service matters are not maintainable. Muhammad Zaman vs. Government of Pakistan (2017 SCMR 571): Distinguished between statutory and non-statutory regulations, clarifying that rules for internal management are non-statutory and cannot be challenged under constitutional jurisdiction. Sohail Asif vs. Board of Governors, OPF (LHC Judgment, 2006): Reiterated that OPF employees are subject to the master-servant rule and cannot invoke constitutional remedies for service matters. Lakhmir vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (IHC Judgment, 2012): Confirmed that OPF regulations are non-statutory and writ petitions against OPF are not maintainable. Managing Director, OPF vs. Federation of Pakistan (IHC Judgment, 2017): Division Bench held that OPF is a non-statutory body, and its employees cannot challenge service matters in writ jurisdiction.

Summary: National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000)--- ----Ss. 17(1) & 30(1)(d)---Non-Surrendering of CNIC of the deceased---Penal consequences--- Scope---Petitioner under constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court had sought directions to NADRA to get recovered original CNIC of his deceased father from the possession of his brother/respondent---Respondent (brother) denied possession of original CNIC of their late father---Father of petitioner and respondent was undisputedly, holding a CNIC---Section 17(1) of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 provided that in case of death of holder of a Card, inter alia, the heirs were bound to surrender Card of deceased within 60 days of such death---Refusal or failure to produce or surrender the card entailed penal consequences under S.30(1)(d) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 and in view of clear provisions of Ss. 17(1) and 30(1)(d) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, it was the legal duty of NADRA to direct the concerned person to surrender the original CNIC of the deceased, if same was not already produced---If the legal heirs were not in possession of original Card of deceased, they might satisfy the concerned Authority to that effect---NADRA was directed by the High Court to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with provisions of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance 2000---Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly.