EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH), MECHANISED CONSTRUCTION OF PAKISTAN versus MUHAMMAD ABID
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 A vacation pay and pension contribution respondent was originally an employee of WAPDA, on which the appellant company was sent on deputation that the leave salary and pension contribution would be paid by the latter respondent. Was sent back to the labor court for which the petition was filed. The amount of money requested to pay the applicants has been approved by the Labor Court requesting the respondent and the appellant that they had already sent the payment to WAPDA but the telecommunication defendant was not told that they were wrong. There was an error in the telecommunications communication via another telex message. The terms and conditions of the agreement between Return and Wapda also revealed that the leave salary and pension contribution amount was to be paid by Wapda to the appellant, which was to be paid by the respondents as per their service rules. The respondent was entitled to the benefits derived from it under the rules
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
