Find a Lawyer

PUNJAB URBAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NOW PRTC) THROUGH DISTRICT MANAGER versus RIASAT ALI

Road Transport Workers Ordinance 1961 Sections 2 (7) and 2 (10) Payment of Wages Act (IV 1936), Section 15 and 17 Notification No. II (L IV) / 65 (I), Dated 15 12 1965 Employees Road Transport Only Service Or mobile duty, is entitled to benefit from the payment of wages: The duty clerk is not defined in section 2 (10) of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1936, and thereby benefits Notification is not entitled to coverage only by people who are actually on mobile duty or who are drivers, cleaners, conductors, or checkers. S authority under the Defense has rightly said that it was not duty clerk / responder workers and it did not act. This was misconstrued by the court as a duty clerk-worker, and was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (7) of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961, under which a worker was charged with mobile duty. Defined as a person in labor court. Decision on Respondents As a worker was separated and the respondents' request under Section 15 of the Payments Act was reinstated, thereby rejecting the Payments Act. property advocate from Kalar Syedian lawyer