MUHAMMAD KASHIF versus KARACHI DOCK LABOUR BOARD THROUGH CHAIRPERSON
Sections 2 (xxv), 25 (13) (a), 56 (1) (d) and 69 Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Settlement of Industrial Controversy The Controversy of Reality Applicants Appointed Fathers as Dock Workers Who had retired. Applicants complaining that their sons (applicants) were not employed on the dockyard in their place was a complaint that no son was found in the dock under the agreement, so authorities had to pay their fathers unanimous payment. Instead, the valid settlement agreement was on the one hand all employees (represented by the CBA under section 25 (13) (a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008) and on the other hand the employer agreed to the settlement. Protected, so that it was a private contract but its implementation was provided through a broader framework of law, in private agreements between the parties, Reform of the law was generally appropriate in some cases for damages or certain performance, but the settlement case, which was also an agreement between the parties, the legislature first applied not only to the employer but also to its heirs, successors, employers and Employees 'assistants were also banned, not only present, but future employees' laws also provided the death penalty if this agreement was violated by either party and the section of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 The mechanism was provided under 69, if there is any difficulty or doubt arising from the interpretation of the settlement, the present case The settlement was the result of this year's 2000, 1987 to get the call I was told it was available with the hood of his job worker, but it was decided that the agreed
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
