WAHAB ALI versus FRONTIER PHARMACEUTICAL (PVT.) LTD.
Section 19 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 18, Arts 22 and 36 Laws of Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 119 The plaintiff for negligence for suit compensation was injured while working at the company's factory The hand was lost when the other employee closed. The service of the machine-claimant was terminated for one year and two months after the trial court rejected the suit claiming to have been stopped at that time and said that another employee , Not the Company / Respondent, is personally responsible and the Plaintiff claims that it will go beyond the limits. Instead of the date of injury, the termination date of service was a year under Article 22 of the Injury Limitation of Injury to an individual, whereas the limitation of compensation independent of the corruption, non-payment or corruption contract limit. The detention was not specifically provided for two years under Article 36 of the Act, 1908, the defendant was under legal obligation to impose a fault-proof system to avoid accidents Article 36 of the Limitation Act 1908 Under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the fraud cannot be dismissed by the defendant. The entry date will be restricted from the date the plaintiff's termination of employment occurs when, for the first time, the plaintiff has learned of fraud. Cannot be given The defendant confessed to the accident, moved to confess to it, which, under the rule of the first party, in the request for a post on the Ounce ban, claimed that it was different.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
