Settlement

2022 CLC 1098 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.XX, R.13Administration of propertySettlementCreation of Trust

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff were Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah and Mohtarma Shireen Jinnah, who had left property in question

Effect

Proposal that property "Qasr-e-Fatima" was to be used for Medical College and Hospital, was supported by all parties including Government of Sindh

Parties present in Court suggested that property of "Qasr-e-Fatima" was unanimously decided to be used for the purpose it was left by Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah

Independent body was constituted which to include eminent philanthropist of the city

High Court directed Official Assignee to take over possession of the property and to make a list of all inventory present in the building and to take photographs of various parts of the building and submit a report

High Court directed the office to communicate concerned persons to formulate the Trust

High Court directed that amount available with office of High Court to be used as seed funds by new Trust for building Girls Medical College / Hospital at the premises in question

Government of Sindh also intended to participate in such a noble initiative and had no objection if the property would be used solely for the purpose of construction of building and operation of Medical College / Hospital exclusively for girls with residential facilities therein with regard to sums deposited by Provincial Government

Trust was formulated accordingly.

2013 PLC 374 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(xxv), 56(1)(d) & 69Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSettlementBenefit given under a particular settlementTaking away or reduction in benefit

Contention of employee was that benefit once given under a particular settlement, could not be taken away or reduced to the disadvantage of a workman

Contention was repelled, as a memo of settlement in the present case, was a bilateral document between a Collective Bargaining Agent representing all the workmen employed in the establishment at the one hand; and the employer on the other hand, and in terms of S.56 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 it was binding on all workmen

Statute had given protection to the settlement

Settlement in question though was a private agreement, but its enforcement had been provided through mechanism laid down by law

Case of a settlement in the present case, was an agreement between the parties, to which the legislature, had made it binding, not only on the employer, but also on heirs, successors or assignees of the employer; the present and future workmen

Law also provided for penal consequences, if a settlement was violated by any of the parties

Collective Bargaining Agent and the employer' could through, a subsequent settlement, modify any of the terms of settlement between the parties agreed in their previous settlement which was eminently logical from every angle, because industrial and commercial establishment operated in a commercial environment and commercial environment constantly changes

Legislature in its wisdom left the Collective Bargaining Agent and the employer to sit down and negotiate the terms and conditions of the employment

Both employer and Collective Bargaining Agent had been granted freedom to settle subject, of course, to what had been laid down as a minimum by the law; and then the law also provided for a period for settlement

Contention that subsequent settlement could not have modified the previous settlement; was without substance.