Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION versus MATIULLAH

25, 36, and 36 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Denial of Request for Termination of Services Compliance with the Labor Court's jurisdiction to apply before the Civil Courts Civil Procedure Code for limitation and scope of services of their employees, employees The employee's complaint against the dismissal of the application is pending. Interim application has been filed under the Civil Procedure Code of the Eighth, R11 and Section 151, which states that the applicants / employees are federal civil servants and not laborers under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the Labor Court Their grievance petitions are not enforceable and should be rejected. O VII, R 11, Conduct of Civil Procedure Code, Scope 36 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 according to which the Labor Court made a civil court decision for the purpose of deciding and determining any industrial dispute. Was invested with some options. The very limited Labor Court / Appellate Tribunal was not imposed with all the powers of the Civil Court, but only in accordance with the calculations in Cls (a), (b) and (c) of section 36 (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Of these, only one method can be defined as the investment made with the Labor Court. Power to dismiss the application Just as the civil court was invested with the plaintiff's dismissal option under OVII, R 11, the Civil Procedure Code, the Labor Court had the right to dismiss the complaints filed by the employees. There was no option, after giving rise to a mix of points contained in the complaints petitions regarding the issue of law and fact whether the applicants / employees were laborers or the federal government. tax advocates from Bannu lawyer