Find a Lawyer

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SALAH-UD-DIN

Section O1 (b) of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Intro Court of Appeal's permanent employees were requested in their constitutional petitions that upon the completion of satisfactory services they were certified and Be treated with regular employees. 10 years and that they should be awarded with all kinds of fringe benefits under the law which stated that the constitutional application has been accepted by the High Court, the employer authority filed an intra-court appeal against the High Court order. I have been told that the defendants were hired by the competent authority on the basis of work charge. / Employees submitted that they were appointed by the competent authority in 1987 under permanent plans on a regular basis and their services were fixed by the appellant authority in 1996 in their decision that the defendants were regular with the employees. Will be treated like work charged employees. The projects are shared by the appellant authority's decision. It can be concluded that the projects in which the respondents were appointed were permanent in nature and the respondents are employees because the projects that have been in operation for the last 10 years are temporary. The employee cannot be declared as the High Court decision passed in the Constitution Petition was upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision reported as PLD 1996 SC 610, and not to face any weakness or illegality. Intra-court appeals cannot be interfered with, especially when sufficient justice has been done The High Court used its discretion in accordance with the law. advocate for immigration from Adda Shaiwala lawyer