Find a Lawyer

SYED SHAHID HUSSAIN versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PLANT PROTECTION AND OTHERS

Section 2 (XXX), 46 and 48 Service Tribunal Act (LXX of 1973), High Court Complaint Requests Against Order Removal Orders \ Workman \, Removal of Service Complaints The deposition of the deposition was dismissed by the President on the basis that the applicants for their grievances were not qualified before the Labor Court on the basis of Section 2A of the Tribunals Act 1973 as Appellant / Government Employees Service. Because they had a way of filing an appeal before the service tribunal. A Labor Court had to show that it fell under the definition of Section 2A of the Civil Service Employee or Worker of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, nor could it be considered nor appreciated by any worker. I have been brought in or under \ public servant \ the compass of a person who was a worker described in clause (xxviii) of Schedule II of the Workers' Compensation Act 1923 and in section 2 (h) of the Factories Act 1934 The de-worker and the person will not be eligible to appeal to the service tribunal and will have to file a complaint under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which the appellants were clearly aware of. Come within the definition of Man as given in clause (xxviii) the Workmen Schedule II. In the Compensation Act, 1923, and in section 2 (h) of the Factories Act, 1934, the Presiding Officer, the Labor Court, was empowered to apply for his complaints against the orders for removal from the job and appropriate The High Court accepted the appeal to pass the orders, setting aside the Labor Court's decision that the Labor Court was in accordance with the law. best advocate from Mian Chunnu lawyer