SIALKOT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, SIALKOT versus KHAWAR MEHMOOD
Section 2 (xxxi), 33 and 47 Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII of 1968), Section 2 (i) and Section Oz 12 and 15 Service Termination Complaint Request Worker / Appointment Appellant / Establishment The decision was heard by the Labor Court, which allowed the complaint to be filed by the employee and ordered to be reinstated with the benefit of the return that the appellant acknowledges that the employee, "the worker." "Due to this, the Labor Court was not entitled to request jurisdiction and the complaint was not submitted to the notice employer, the complaint filed by the employee The affidavit was sworn to employ unqualified, did not specify the nature of his duties did not provide any explanation of the nature of the employee's duties that may determine. As a laborer status or otherwise, the Labor Court was not justified in finding that the employee regarded the question of labor as a basic principle and had far-reaching implications if the employee. If no labor is found, the Labor Court will be denied the option to settle the matter, there is no explanation of the nature of the employee's duties that can be provided. His status was determined as "labor determined" or otherwise, the matter was returned to the Labor Court to record the parties' evidence and decide on this important issue. \ R \ n
Related judgments — Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab, 2012
