Find a Lawyer

MESSRS AGAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., THROUGH GENERAL-MANAGER versus MUHAMMAD ZAHID

Section (46 ()) and (47 ()) Compensation Award Compensation for the Employee to Provide Employment in Employment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance of the Labor Court, section 25A of 2002, the same as that of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 The study suggests that the ordinance, repealing ? 69 6969, had two options when dealing with the employee's complaint, the Labor Court, either with no benefit to the employee in the job. Re-ordering or rejecting its request and re-refusing it under re-enforced industrial relations Sec. Was also a third option of raising side (5) 46, which was declared invalid by the Labor Court employment of an employee when in such a case, still be refused re-appointment in appropriate cases. To be compensated according to the conditions as provided for in the law above, such an option is available to compensate the Labor Court. However, in return for re-working on the job, in any case, this assessment is justified. It cannot be submitted that upon entering into such provisions in the newly issued Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, the Labor Court was stripped of its re-order. Hiring a worker in the service when reinstating employees through labor court with no benefits, does not require appeal interference \ r \ n family advocate from Daud Khel lawyer