Find a Lawyer

FRONTIER LABOUR CONTRACTOR THROUGH PROPRIETOR versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS

Section 2 (xxx) and 52 West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Section 0 of the 20 Factories Act (XXV of 1934), Section 2 (g) (h) of the Commission's single bench decision. Appeals against. In its decision before the full bench of respondents as permanent employees, the contract labor bench found that some of the defendants / employees were permanent employees of the employer corporation because they were permanently employed in the corporation and social Security contributions were also paid to the department. Both the contractor and the corporation on behalf of the corporation had dismissed the respondents' claim that they were employees of the corporation and had obtained permanent status and in that same case the unanimous order of the single bench was obtained and on that basis the corporation The main idea was that the employees were not employees of the corporation, but were employees of the single bench contractor's decision on the basis that the verdict was not announced in the open court, but the corporation's objections were not verbally written to him. The announcement was made in the chamber and the contractor was not worth it because the mill Earth was constantly working, which was a concern in the Corporation, the Corporation and other industry employees that have been supported by the Social Security Institute of the contractors not paid. All employees, whether employed directly or by an agency / contractor engaged in a manufacturing process, were included as covered laborers. And it was the employer's responsibility to provide for his rights and benefits under the law, best law firm from Kot Mithan lawyer