Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 2 (xviii) Responding to the dismissal of the service, the respondent employee, at the time he was charged, was receiving Rs 780 as salary and Maulvi was performing the duties. Nothing was brought on record that the respondents ever used any force. He has no appointment or authority to hire a lawyer, nor does he have the authority to hire anyone, nor can he be a worker responsible for the nature of his duties as a court and labor appellate tribunal. Is. The jurisdiction was unreasonable and the respondents were properly organized to become a worker through Lux Stand - to resolve their complaint under Section 25A.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
