Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM versus PAKISTAN OIL SEED DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Section 2A, & Lim Limitation Act (IX of 8, 1908), Termination of Section 5 Service Delay Delay Delayed End of his employment as an Applicant Contracting Employer, he was terminated It was challenged during the hearing of the petition in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court, Section 2A, was entered into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, rather than seeking the right to appeal immediately before the service tribunal, not delaying the delay after the High Court Service Tribunal dismissed their application. After doing so, such an appeal was filed and the applicant's appeal was dismissed. On the filing of Section 2A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the Judiciary High Court had no jurisdiction due to the restriction of the matters at that time, such matters were not resolved soon after the change in the law, so that the aggrieved persons could be deprived of the law. Refer to the Service Tribunal within. The period provided under the law has confused the High Court for a considerable period in the filing of Section 2A in the Service Tribunals Act 1973, the reduction of pending service matters before the second forums and the Service Tribunals Act 1973 The position in connection with the earlier operation of Section 2A of K was not clear and the doubt was eventually dismissed by the Supreme. Therefore, the court was required to consider the question of limitation in each case on the basis of its facts. Due to misunderstanding, the applicant did not approach the service tribunal before dismissing the constitutional application by the High Court. Would be sufficiently appropriate for By filing an appeal before the service tribunal in the scope of section 5 of the Transaction Limitation Act, 1908 famous supreme court advocate from Loralai lawyer