Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)-------Ss. 2(x)(xxx) & 46---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(c)(i) & S.O.12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Termination of service---Grievance petition---Status of worker,determination of---Criteria---Question, in the present case, for consideration was whetherthe respondents were employees of the petitioner/establishment or that of contractor---Todetermine the real status of a worker, as to whether he was employee of an establishment ora contractor, the criteria was whether the establishment had administrative control ove r theworker; whether the establishment was based for the work done by the worker; whether theestablishment had the power to reinstate and dismiss the worker; whether the workrequired to be performed by worker was of a permanent nature and was same relat ed to theprocess of manufacturing before the finished goods were sent into market; whetherpayment for the worker's service was made by the establishment; whether the goods, thatthe worker helped to manufacture, when marketed, brought proceeds to the est ablishment itself; whether the worker had been performing his duties and providing labour in connectionwith the manufacturing process and whether the contractor was a genuine person and hadnot been set up merely to deny the worker of the benefits under the labour laws.(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002)-------Ss. 2(x)(xxx) & 46---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(c)(i) & S.O.12---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Termination of service---Grievance petition---Status of worker,determination of---Grievance petition by the employees against order of their terminationof service had concurrently been allowed by the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Petitioner/employer had claimed that no relationship of employer and employeesexisted between the parties; that employees and the employer had nothing to do with theemployment, contract and wages of the employees; as they were employees of thecontractor---Cross-examination of Factory Manager of the petitioner company andAssistant Director Social Security Institution had suggested that employees were theemployees of the petitioner establishment and not that of the contractor---Record hadfurther indicated that the respondents, being employees of the petitioner, had no concernwhatsoever with the contractor---During employment of the respondents/employees, anumber of contractors were changed, but the respondents remained at their jobs in thepetitioner's factory---Petitioner/employer appeared to have had administrative control overthe respondents with power of hiring and firing---Respondents were also on the pay roll ofthe petitioner---All the circumstances, individually as well as collectively having led to oneconclusion that respondents were the employees of the petitioner, finding of both theLabour Court and Appellate Tribunal, declaring the respondents as employees of thepetitioner establishment, did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, which did notwarrant any interference by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.(c) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-------S. 12---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002), S.46---Constitution of Pakistan,Art.199---Constitutional petition---Termination of service---Reinstatement---Back-benefits,entitlement to-Services of employees were terminated, but they were reinstatedconcurrently by Labour Court- and Appellate Tribunal---Employees claimed full backbenefits---Validity---Back-benefits which were to be paid., to a workman, were not to beallowed to him as a punishment to the employer for illegally removing him from service,but only to compensate the worker for his remaining jobless on account of illegal removalfrom service by the employer---To be, entitled to claim back-benefits, a worker was required to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was deprived ofservice till the date of reinstatement---Employees had failed to prove that they remainedjobless during the period of their termination from services till reinstatement---All theemployees in their grievance petitions, did not specifically state that they remained joblessand were not engaged in any other gainful venture---Employees were not entitled to receivefull back-benefits on the principle of "no work no pay"---High Court observed that it wasreasonable to presume that a person who was removed from service, would not be able to getalternate employment immediately or be able to set himself up in any gainful venture and itwould take a few months to do so---Employees, in circumstances, would be entitled to receiveback-benefits for a period of three months from the date of their removal from service. Syed Anwar Ali Shah v. The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others 1999 PLC223 ref.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 47 & 48---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3 & Art. 181---Execution of decree---Limitation---Scope---Plea of decree-holder was that under Art. 181 of Limitation Act,1908, his execution application was within limitation, as S.48 C.P.C. had prescribed aperiod of six years---Validity---Decree-Bolder made first application 6n 16-6-2006, forexecution of decree passed on 19-3-2003, so the application filed by decree-holder was afterthree years and three months of the decree---Application for execution of decree was filedbeyond the period of three years---Provisions of S.48 C.P.C. contemplated freshapplication meaning thereby any application subsequent to the first one---Applicationfor execution so filed by decree-holder was the ever first application, therefore,applicability of S. 48 C.P.C. was beyond imagination---Appeal or proceedings institutedbeyond prescribed period of limitation was liable to be dismissed as required by S. 3 ofLimitation Act, 1908---Execution application filed by decree-holder was rightlydismissed by both the courts below---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.Mahboob Khan v. Hassan Khan Durrani PLD 1990 SC 778; 2007 SCMR 1929 and PLD1985 SC 153 rel.

Summary: Ss. 13(2)(ii)(a), (3)(a) & of 15 West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Personal bona fide use for son without mentioning his name and recording his statement. ---- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)------Ss. 13(2)(ii)(a), (3)(a) & 15---Ejectment of tenant on grounds of subletting by tenantand personal bona fide need of landlord for his son---Landlord had not mentioned as towhich of his sons was jobless, for whom the shop was required, because the name of theson had not been mentioned in the ejectment application; nor the witnesses and thelandlord in their statements before the Rent Controller disclosed the same---No properperson had been specified for the purpose of getting the possession of the shop, if aneviction order was passed, it could not be implemented for the reason that who would getthe possession---Son for whom the shop in question was required did not appear beforethe Rent Controller---Since the application was for the personal bona fide use andoccupation of the son of landlord, his appearance before the court and recording hisstatement was necessary being the proper person to explain his requirement---Withoutrecording the statement of the son for whom the shop was required, it was not possible forthe landlord to prove the personal bona fide need of his son and also the requirementcould not be judged---Landlord did not make the alleged sublessee as party to theejectment application; nor had stated in his application as to when the shop in questionhad been sublet---By not impleading the sublessee as a party, the ground of subletting,could not be agitated, nor it could be proved---Impugned order passed by Rent Controllerwas set aside and ejectment application filed by the landlord was dismissed, incircumstances.

Summary: Article 22 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Holding of identification test, its legal value and importance---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 322 & 337-L(2)---Qatl-bis-sabab, hurt---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R., which had been registered after preliminaryinquiry---Accused was implicated in the case on the basis of the statements of the victims---No identification parade was held after arrest of the accused---Victims who were also eyewitnesses of the occasion had identified the accused for the first time before Trial Court, butthey being not previously familiar to the accused, said identification needed corroboration,which was lacking---Mere identification of accused before the court was not enough---Investigating Officer had failed to collect important evidence---Evidence of the saidwitnesses regarding identity of accused, therefore, could not be relied upon---Accused hadbeen described as the owner of the Hotel from where the victims had been boarded on thecontainer and proceeded to the deadly journey, but no interrelation of the accused with thesaid Hotel was established on record---Accused even was not proved to run the business ofsaid Hotel---Prosecution had failed to connect the accused with the commission of theoffence---Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances.Farman Ali v. The State 1997 SCMR 971; Muhammad Azam v. The State 1997 SCMR 1489 and Asghar Ali v. The State 1992 SCMR 2088 ref(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art. 22---Identification parade---Holding of identification test becomes necessary in thecase where names of the culprits are not given in the F.I.R.---Holding of such test is a checkagainst false implication and it is a good piece of evidence against the genuine culprits.Farman Ali v. The State 1997 SCMR 971 ref.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 322 & 337-L(2)---Qatl-bis-sabab, hurt---Identification of accused in court---Legalrequirement---Identification in court of the accused who was produced months after the eventcannot satisfy the requirement of law for proving the identity of the culprit.Asghar Ali v. The State 1992 SCMR 2088 ref.

Summary: Summary pending