Find a Lawyer

ABDUL LATIF versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

Section 25A Payment of Wage Act (IV of 1936), Section 2 (vi) and 15 Factories Act (XXV of 1934), Section 47 Complaint application, was maintained on the employees' complaints petition to maintain Are working to fix the There was a moving train and he had to stay on duty with the train and perform his duty for more than eight hours, but he was not paid any overtime, which led to the Labor Court returning a complaint to the employees. I was claiming that employees are aligned with wages. As explained, in section 2 (vi) of the Salary Payment Act, 1936, payment of commissioners was limited to claims only in respect of the powers of the Commissioner under Section 15 of the Payment of Act, 1936. Delays from wages or delays in payment of wages, and penalties for fraudulent or ridiculous claims can only be dealt with by the Commissioner when the owners were paying the former employees and all overtime. Thus either the deduction was made or the employees were delayed, in the present case no additional allowance was ever given, it was under the jurisdiction of the Labor Court to determine the employees' claim that the Factories Act, 1934 Labor Court. Section 47 of the Constitution guarantees their guarantees. The circumstances, between the parties and the Commissioner, were the power to resolve disputes with very limited powers contained in section 15 (1) of the Wages Act, 1936; the Labor Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Allows appeal against a labor decision. The court sought the remand of the case with the direction of the law list of supreme court advocates from Haveli Kahuta lawyer