Find a Lawyer

SAMKAR TAMEERAT (PVT.) LTD. versus MUMTAZ HUSSAIN

Sections 46 and 48 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII of 1968), Section 1 (4) and the termination of Section O15 service from the scope of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Appeal High Court accepted the Labor Court's complaint against the dismissal, restored them with all the privileges to return, and the employers had filed an appeal with the High Court against the reinstatement order, saying that the restitution order The employers challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing) Act The ordinance, 1968 did not apply in this case because only seven workers were working in the establishment The employee claimed that more than 27 workers were working in the establishment, but could not prove their claim by providing documentary evidence and Didn't even test. In this regard, any individual is only affected by the employee's single statement. More than 20 workers were working without assistance or piece of evidence in the establishment, however, they registered their workers' attendance and The salary register was developed which shows that from 1999 to 2003 only seven workers were working in their establishment. Thus it has been proved that the Establishment West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Orders of Ordinance) Ordinance was operating in less than 20 workers in 1968, under which circumstances the Labor Court did not apply, therefore, to maintain the complaint. There was no jurisdiction. Employees' request suffered from the inherent jurisdiction of the Labor Court decision, which was set aside power of attorney advocate Chak Jamal lawyer