Find a Lawyer

ALMAS AHMAD FIAZ versus SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB HOUSING AND PHYSICAL PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, LAHORE

Article 46 (1) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) prohibiting the application of complaints was employed on the basis of work charge in 1988, after which he was employed on ad hoc basis against permanent post. Given that, in 1998, the post was once again dismissed by the High Court on the basis of the work charge as well as the intra-court appeal, which was filed by the petitioner against such conversion. , Because they did not file a complaint notice under section 46 (1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002. Intra-Court of Appeals, petitioner gave notice of the complaint and then the petitioner was allowed by the Labor Court, but the High Court dismissed the same notice as the complaint was banned at the time of notice, Valdity Petitioner 7 years 2002. Was given notice of the complaint, 3 years and 4/2 months after the High Court dismissed his intra-court appeal because of the action he had received, yet he had filed Section 46 (1) of the Industrial Rule. The complaint was not given to the employer under The Ordinance of Action, 2002, on the question of limitations under section 46 under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002, had to be construed as a strictly known maxim to prevent a party from enforcing the law of limitation referring to a court. Was not allowed The jurisdiction related to the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction to resolve any excessive number of complaints was obliged to explain the delay of each day as the valuable right was obtained on the other hand as the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court decision. done. Leave of appeal for labor appellate jurisdiction denied \ r \ n top advocates from Nilam lawyer