1986 PLP 1926 (SCMR)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD BHUTTA and others — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL OPERATION DIVISION, SCARP, KHAIRPUR and others — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1926 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J. , S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD BHUTTA and others — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL OPERATION DIVISION, SCARP, KHAIRPUR and others — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1926 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1926 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J. , S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1926 (SCMR) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD BHUTTA and others — Petitioner Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL OPERATION DIVISION, SCARP, KHAIRPUR and others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Amjad, Advocate Supreme, Court instructed by Ahmedullah Faruqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1986.
- Ali Amjad, Advocate Supreme, Court instructed by Ahmedullah Faruqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in all petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, dated 6-2-1986 passed in Constitutional Petitions Nos. SUK-S-68 and S-69 of 1984; 128, 72, 70, 184, 206, 38, 113 of 1985; S-71, SUK-S-135, 205, 40, 183, 132, 136, 2/85 and 107 of 1984, respectively).
Art. 185(3)--Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973 (1 of 1974), S.2(b)--Interpretation of word 'employee'--Dissenting view expressed on interpretation of word 'employee' by another-learned Judge of High Court--Leave to appeal granted to have an authoritative pronouncement by Supreme Court. Government of Sind v . The Executive Engineer Constitutional Petition No. S-62 of 1983 ref.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The above‑connected petitions arise out of s common judgment of the Sind High. Court, dated 6‑2‑1986 and involve common question of law. 2.The impugned judgment turns on the interpretation of the term 'employee' as given in section 2(b) of the Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced certified copy of a judgment rendered in Constitutional Petition No. S‑62 of 1983, Government of Sind v. The Executive Engineer by another learned Single Judge of the same High Court dissenting with the interpretation of term 'employee' given in the impugned judgment. In the said case the employees were held entitled to the benefit of Cost of Living Allowance under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In the circumstances an authoritative pronouncement by this Court in the matter seems necessary. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.500 in each case. The appeals shall be heard on the present record. M.I. Leave granted.