Service

2023 MLD 1145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(g), (n), 16, 17 & PreambleKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act (XXXVIII of 2014), S. 22Consumer protectionServiceScopeEnvironment protection

Appellants were employees of Municipal Committee and complainant sought relocation of dumping zone for garbage of the city

Appellants were aggrieved of conviction awarded by Trial Court for violating directions issued to them

Validity

To encourage fair trade practices and to protect legitimate interests of consumers, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, was promulgated

Consumer is the person who buys goods for consideration or hires services

To attract provision of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997, complainant had to prove that he was a consumer by way of purchase of goods or hired services of a service providers for consideration

Respondent/ complainant neither purchased any goods nor hired services of appellants, rather they were aggrieved from the actions/acts of appellants for establishing a dumping site for waste material, creating hazard and nuisance to nearby population

Grievance of respondent/complainant was not in respect of goods for services in view of S. 2(g) & (n) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumer Protection Act, 1997

Matter fell within the jurisdiction of Tribunal established under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Environmental Protection Act, 2014

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to appellants and remanded the matter to Trial Court to return the complaint for presenting it before competent forum

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2019 SCMR 282 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(23), 3 & 16 & First Sched., Table IICustoms Act (IV of 1969), First Sched. [Pakistan Customs Tariff (PCT), Chapt. 98]ServicesFederal excise duty, payment ofExemptionScope

All services provided in Pakistan were exempt from Federal Excise Duty unless specified in the First Schedule to the Federal Excise Act, 2005 read with Chapter 98 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff (PCT)

First Schedule to the Federal Excise Act, 2005 was not to be read in isolation, rather had to be read with Chapter 98 of the PCT

Even an activity within the definition of "services" under S. 2(23) of the Act was exempt from Federal Excise Duty unless specified in the First Schedule

Assessee, therefore, did not have to apply under S. 16 of the Act for exemption

Services provided by the assessee were exempt if not specified in the First Schedule to the Federal Excise Act, 2005.

2015 PLC(CS) 195 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 25Constitutional petitionServiceRegularizationPetitioners claimed themselves to be the Caretakers and Guards working on contract basis in the respondent/company

Grievance of the petitioners was that a number of persons working on contract basis in the respondent/company were regularized, but the petitioners were not being regularized against their respective posts by treating them discriminately

Plea of the respondent/company was that the constitutional petition was liable to be dismissed, since the petitioners had no lien or right over the respondent company being not employees of the said organization

Validity

Salary sheets produced by the respondent company showed that the petitioners were the employees of the ZIM security company and were not on the pay roll of the respondent company

Petitioners were not in possession of any appointment letter issued to them by the respondent company and if the petitioners claimed that they were the employees of the company they should have at least produced the appointment letters issued to them

Assigning a job by the respondent company for deploying them at a certain place would not imply that they had become the employees of the said company when it was evident that the petitioners were the security guards, provided by Security Company as per the agreement executed between the respondent company and the said Security Company

Simply outsourcing certain specific job by the company would not mean that the petitioners had become employees of the company

Petitioners had failed to adduce any evidence to show that they were at any given point of time the employees of respondent Company, therefore, they were not entitled for regularization

Regularization of other persons were approved by the HR department of respondent company, who were working on casual work basis, therefore, they had no nexus with the case of the petitioners, and argument raised by the petitioners was not tenable

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

1978 SCMR 187 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. XI V, r. 2-Notice-Service-Party represented in proceedings by an Advocate- on-Record-Party identified with such Advocate in respect of all acts to be done by such Advocate-Service of notice on Advocate-on-Record, held must be deemed to be as effective as upon party itself.

O. XLI, r. 17-Appeal, dismissal of-Petitioner (appellant) properly served for date fixed for having through his Advocate-on-Record but none appearing-Notices to petitioners Advocate-on-Record on at least three previous decisions for appearance in Registry of High Court going unheeded and Advocate-on-Record contending himself with passing on such notices to petitioner's counsel-Course adopted, held, not purpose of notices given and a clear dereliction of duty-Recalling order of dismissal of appeal for non- prosecutions, held further, would in circumstances amount to placing a premium on gross negligence of petitioner's Advocate on-Record.

1970 PLD 483 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. V, rr. 17 & 19-Service

Peon of Court allegedly hanging summons on fencing of defendant's house-Serving peon, however not examined by trial Court under r. 19-Ex parte decree passed by trial Court against defendant, in circumstances, held, correctly annulled by lower appellate Court.

1962 PLC 1050 Judicial Precedent

Service Service - Continuity - Workers retrenched owing to stoppage of operation-Sent on forced leave and re-employed Demand for continuity of service, rejected.

1961 PLD 255 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Service TerminationNoticeOne month expressly provided by rules

Claim to "reasonable" notice not warranted-[African Association Limited and Allen (1910) 1 K B D 396 distinguished].

1957 PLD 641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ServiceTerminated in accordance with contract

Termination not "dismissal"-Government of India Act, 1935, S. 240 (2) inapplicable-Meaning of "dismissal" Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 181 (1).