Find a Lawyer

MUKHTAR ALI versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

Sections 46 and 48 of the Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), Section 2 Maintaining an Mandatory Retirement Complaint Appeal After the Appellate High Court served as an Appellant, he retired from the Labor Court. I filed a complaint, but was deemed unable to be retained and the appellant filed an appeal to the Labor Court against the appellant's decision to be an Assistant Electrical Examiner of the Railway Trains even though it falls into the category of Workman. , But after the addition of Section 2A to the Service Tribunals Act 1973, employees who came under the definition Will Workers also had to approach the service tribunal to resolve their complaints. Appellant should have referred to the service tribunal after joining these employees, but he failed to do so because he had resolved his complaint. Was referred to the Labor Court for The Labor Court was obliged to decide on the first jurisdictional question, in which t failed to decide if the jurisdiction question had been taken earlier and the trial / Labor Court's position was that of filing the complaint request. Since it has no jurisdiction, the application should have been returned to the appropriate forum. Instead, the case was adjourned for unnecessary length of time, the High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the unclean decision and order and returned the case to the Appellant to return the case to the appropriate forum. Shipped \ r \ n property advocate from Kunri lawyer