MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM versus PAKISTAN OIL SEED DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND OTHERS
Section 2A, & Lim Limitation Act (IX of 8, 1908), Section proceedings delay Termination of service Termination of service As a petitioner contract employee, his service was terminated by the High Court. The constitutional jurisdiction was challenged when the petition was earlier heard during the hearing. 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 In the scope of section 5 of the Transaction Limitation Act, 1908, before the Service Tribunal
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
