PRINCIPAL, SADIQ PUBLIC SCHOOL,BAHAWALPUR versus DIRECTOR (M&I), EMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION, MULTAN
Sections 2 (e), 11, 33, 34 and 35 of the Amendment Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 passed by the Court of Appeal Employees Old Age Benefit Act, 1976, and scope appellant, a school application, single The order was unknown in its constitutional jurisdiction in which the High Court Judge, in which the constitutional application of the school was dealt with by the Applicant / Applicant instructing him to avail alternatively under Sections 33, 34, 35, The lawyer's argument for the Employees Old Age Benefit Act 1976 was that the appellant did not fall within the scope of the school terms / establishment / or organization pending. The authorities did not have any legal authority to register the appellant school under section 11 (3) of the Employees Old Age Benefit Act 1976, and the registration certificate was affected and consequently the employees reviewed the Old Age Benefit Partnership. The relevant letters, the laws and the facts were hypocritical, with no legal authority and the obligation to put the merger aside The Duty Employees Old Age Benefits Act 1976, was a useful legislation aimed at benefiting employees of old age, Counsel for the appellant was displaced from the power for the simple reason that clubs, hostels and messes were F was added. The establishment benefit provided in the Employees Old Age Benefit Act of 1976 did not work for profit or profit, not excluding the jurisdiction of the \ institution ments or organizations, keeping in mind the legislative, appellant school's beneficial and reform spirit. Can be done Legislative scheme in the Old Employees Old Age Benefit Act 1976 stated that benefits could not be relied on under the Act,
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
