Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

NAZAR MUHAMMAD BHUTTA versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE-WELL OPERATION DIVISION, SCARP, KHAIRPUR


Article 185 (3) to declare an authoritative declaration by the Supreme Court to appeal the controversial view on the interpretation of the Employees \ Price Life (Relief) Act, 1973 (1 of 1974), section 2 (b). Approved
1986 S C M R 1926

Present: Muhammad Haleem, C. J. , S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ

NAZAR MUHAMMAD BHUTTA and others‑‑Petitioner

versus

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBE‑WELL OPERATION DIVISION, SCARP, KHAIRPUR and others‑‑Respondent

Civil Petitions Nos. 184‑K, 185‑K to 192‑K, 187‑K, 200‑K and 233‑K to 240‑K of 1986, decided on 13th August, 1946.

(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).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑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.

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.

ORDER

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.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
law websites from Mangal Sada lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.