MEHMOOD HUSSAIN versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT
Section 2 (ii) (G) and 15 (2) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 2 (xxviii) Worker, which claims medical leave, annual leave and overtime residency of required employees, Assigned worker status contractor and employer not required Worker fails to prove employer and employee relationship with desired employer Labor defendant worker (defendant) requested proof of misrepresentation by management claiming arrears Filed, according to which it has been withheld by the employer. The Company (Appellant) Company (Required Employer) claimed that the worker was a contractor's employee and the company authority did not reject the worker's claim but was allowed by the Labor Court and the High Court to grant the company. Did they never employ an employee? This worker contracted with the contractor and was employed by the contractor as an employee. That worker worked in the company premises and was given an entry pass for the same reason, because he was not employed by the company, and that does not make sense to the worker provided in section 2. xxviii) The accuracy of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 The Labor Court rejected the authority's successes primarily on the basis that the company admitted in its cross-examination that the contractor's contract began on 13 8 2001 while the worker's claim was made in August. Since 2000, when the admitted contractor was not in the picture, the Labor Court did not examine the documents presented by the worker in support of his claim. Syed documents indicated that no claim 138 was related to the period before 2001. 13 8 2001
