EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SHUJABAD CANAL DIVISION, MULTAN versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.9, MULTAN
Claims for reinforcement as applicant's son in the petitioner's request for regularization of service, Section 17 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Services Appointment and Regulations) Regulations, 1974, which is the head of irrigation department / Was working as a watchman. Based on the work charge, during the hearing of the petition filed to regularize his service, the applicant consulted the petitioner's lawyer, leaving four sons and two daughters to appoint the complaint. It should be issued immediately after issuing instructions to the authorities. As the son of the victim, the bailor / guardian labor court dismissed the applicant's complaint under human rights under R17A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Terms of Service) on the request of the official son of the citizen. ????? The 1974 Department of Appeals granted the injunction, under which employees were barred from working on charges. It has been excluded from the definition of public servant, Civil Employees (Organization and Terms of Service) Rules, 1974. Under KR 17A, the son of the deceased employee stated that the provisions of R17A could not be taken advantage of and the powers exercised by the Labor Court under R17A were, without jurisdiction, humanitarian labor. The court's ruling was void in the eyes of the law. The matter is bound to be decided and decided within the parameters set by law. If there is any delay in filing an appeal against a false order, it does not affect the appeal. Was given and in the unstable circumstances, was killed
Related judgments — Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab, 2012
