MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus DISTRICT MANAGER
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3A) Promotional Appellant Claims Progress Before Advancement Of A Co-Worker, Respondent No.2, Applicant Appeal By Sentencing Respondent No.2 Was returned during the hearing of. The court rejected the appellant's complaint request and did not justify the wrong view given by the Labor Court because the appellant's important prayer was for publicity and he was responding to defendant No. 2 in this regard. On the contrary, and that was why he heard the petition. Elsewhere, the Labor Court had to consider the appellant's case in order to arrive at a conclusion whether it had the right to demand the direction of the Labor Court to be considered, and the case to be merit. Be remanded for decision on.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
law firms from Tharparkar lawyer
