Unfair means
Unfair means legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioners were employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited (PTCL) and their services were terminated by authorities on their demand to increase basic salary as announced by Federal Government
Validity
Authorities were pre-decided to terminate services of those employees who were not surrendering before them at their terms
Demand of affidavits that employees would not take part in union activities was against law
To form union and become its member is a fundamental right of employee / labourer and refusal to employee or to sabotage his right to become member of labour union is an offence
Petitioners had more than 20 years of service and institution had thrown them out by violating fundamental right of hearing and fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution
Petitioners were not heard, no charge sheet was issued and their services were terminated without any lawful authority
Termination of services of petitioners was without lawful authority and of no legal effect resultantly petitioners would deemed to be in service
High Court directed the authorities to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, if they had any grievance against petitioners
Petition was allowed accordingly.
Education Board instead of issuing matriculation certificate, initiated disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff on the allegation of using unfair means and overwriting the marks in his answer sheets
Trial court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff and appeal filed by Education Board was dismissed by Lower Appellate Court
Validity
Education Board relied upon circumstantial evidence that plaintiff in connivance with Head Examiner had got his marks enhanced but the Head Examiner denied the allegations
One could not be penalized merely on presumptions as solid evidence was required to prove the allegations which was missing against plaintiff
Disciplinary Committee of the Board acted under parental jurisdiction and was bound to take all precautionary measures while appointing Examiner/Head Examiner, especially when Head Examiner was found involved in malpractices that Examiner must not have been appointed for such important post
Education Board failed to convince that Disciplinary Committee was validly constituted and quorum was complete
Education Board did not take proper action against delinquents inside the Board which was essential and positive step towards cleaning the Board from black sheep and avoiding such incidents, in future
Board had only held the plaintiff as responsible, which was not just and fair
Concurrent findings of law and fact of two courts below against the Education Board that it had mishandled the matter and remained failed to produce cogent evidence to prove its stance
Only one witness was produced by the Board who had shown his total ignorance about the matter
High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Petitioners/students were found involved in using unfair means to change their grades, therefore, University authorities suspended them for one semester
Validity
Petitioners were student of respondent university who allegedly managed fraud/cheating in order to get better scoring in their results
Petitioners had allegedly committed an abominable act and were rightly tackled by University authorities
In academic matters University authorities were the best judges to interpret rules and regulations framed by University authorities
Courts were required to avoid to interpret the same unless case of grave injustice was made out, otherwise it would become difficult for Universities to run their affairs
High Court declined to interfere in the decision taken by authorities against petitioners
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petition for leave to appeal
Contentions (i) whether petitioner was a 'workman' and his application against his removal from service without any show-cause notice and necessary enquiry was competent before Junior Labour Court; (ii) whether expression skilled or unskilled qualify words 'manual or clerical' and whether these two expressions used in S.2(i) of Ordinance VI of 1968 could be read in conjunction with each other; (iii) whether in construing definition of term 'workman' for that purpose, basic nature and true character of work entrusted to employee has to be looked at without being unduly influenced by sundry and purely incidental duties performed by him; and (iv) whether in circumstances
Allegation of conspiracy of candidate appearing for examination with concerned tabulators and making of deliberate previous arrangements to cheat in examination by way of getting his result forged for his benefit
Scope of rule of natural justice to which Disciplinary Committee was required to adhere, stated.
Points raised already canvassed on behalf of petitioner before High Court-Special Disciplinary Committee giving finding on basis of material available on record-Petitioner at time of his personal appearance duly confronted by Committee with all such record-Board held, competent in law to recall results initially notified by Gazette notification.
Unfair means
No prejudice caused to petitioner by fact of his case having been dealt with by a three member Disciplinary Committee instead of two-member Committee-Plea as to constitution of committee, held, of no consequence in circumstances.
Unfair means case-Contention as to incriminating material being not collected in presence of petitioner and opportunity of bearing not afforded-Petitioner submitting written explanation
Incriminating material, held, could be collected in his absence
Rules set out by Supreme Court in P L D 1981 S C 464 not contravened-Petition dismissed.
"Unfair means", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/14972
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Unfair means"
PLD 1996 Supreme Court 709
ABDUL JANAN ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR .
Court:2010 C L C 95
MUZAFFAR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE
Court: LahoreP L D 1988 Peshawar 99
SIKANDAR SADIQ and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR and 5 others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑ Examination‑‑Maxim‑‑Audi alteram partem (no man should be condemned unheard)‑‑Unfair means used in examination hall on massive scale‑‑Examination held on specified dates declared to be null and void by Authority‑‑Plea of examinees that before such action was taken by Authority they were not given opportunity of making their defence‑Validity of such plea‑‑Principle that no man should be condemned unheard to consequences resulting from misconduct and without allowing opportunity of making his defence, held, would not be attracted in a case where unfair means were adopted or, acts of indiscipline committed by all examinees in examination hall.‑‑Maxim.P L D 2005 Supreme Court 443
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, QUETTA through Controller of Examinations and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus YASIR ARAFAT and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Per Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J; Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, J. agreeing‑‑Majority view.2001 M L D 936
Mst. FARAH‑UL‑MOMENEEN‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY
Court: Lahore2000 S C M R 1030
RAWALPINDI through Chairman and another — Petitioners Versus SEHR AZMAT and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1988 Supreme Court 638
SIKANDAR SADIQ and others‑‑Petitioners Versus UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR and others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑University examinations‑‑Use of unfair means involving large majority of candidates and almost all the varieties of unfair means‑ University/Vice‑Chancellor, held, had ample power to annul the examination‑‑Such residuary power, even if it were conceded that no specific rule dealt with absolutely similar situation, would also be deemed to be inherent in the University‑‑Examinations, having been validly annulled in their entirety, question of the individual grievances of each examinee would not arise as in law there was no examination at all‑‑Result of annulment being that all the examinees had to appear again in the fresh examinations. p. 641 A1986 M L D 747
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR — Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB — Respondent
Court: Lahore1989 M L D 3763
PUNJAB BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD JAVID AKHTAR and others‑ — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 2004 Supreme Court 25
BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION — Petitioner Versus Hafiz AHMAD SUFYAN — Respondent
Court: High Court