Find a Lawyer

FAIZ MUHAMMAD versus PRESIDING OFFICER, IIIRD LABOUR COURT, SINDH

Salary Payment Act 1936 Section 15 From the date of the premature retirement of the worker to the date of his return, the receipt of wages was given by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the Labor Court upheld that fact. That former employees were retired from the job. And then it was expressly withdrawn upon representation that it supported the worker's argument that he had treated a retired retired petitioner with no pay interference period that was not supported by any law. The worker was forced to retire and did not voluntarily go on leave. The worker was prematurely retired so the worker could not be denied wages for the period for which he was unlawful. The Labor Court ruled that the worker was not guaranteed money interference as he was kept out of work. advocates from Wan Radha Ram lawyer