Find a Lawyer

NESTLE MILK PACK (PVT.) LTD. versus VICE-COMMISSIONER, PESSI, HEAD OFFICE, LAHORE

Sections 1 (3), 20 (8) and 64 Appeal Social Security Contracting Contractor Demanding Applicant's Notice Appellant is a notified company and a construction contractor is engaged for some construction on its premises. Busy employees demanding contribution The construction contractor in the premises raised by the appellant was that it was the most guaranteed but the construction contractor had the primary responsibility of contributing to the social security in relation to the construction work. Not the appellant. The legitimate fact is that the construction contractor was not notified under Section 1 (3) of the Security Social Security Ordinance, 1965, so there was no effect on the notice of the appellant's premises, the same was the scope of the provincial employees. I had enough to bring. The Security Ordinance, 1965, for any contractor who carried out construction work in such premises was not legally justified by the Social Curatorial Court that the appellant company had a primary obligation with respect to the social security obligations that the appellant high court had. Construction work in the premises is paid in relation to the people working for the construction work. Neither the Security Court nor the Appellant Company guarantees social security contributions in the short term nor is there a significant obligation. Where no notice was issued by the authority to the construction contractor, it has been demanded by the aunt as a contribution under the provisions of the provincial employees. Ordinance, 1965, High Court directs authorities that no one shall be recovered from a construction contractor without best law firms from Chaman lawyer