The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the appellant abolishing section 2 and 25 services, was a boiler supervisor in the mill, and the request for a complaint against his dismissal order was dismissed by the Labor Court on the grounds that it was too labor intensive. The only evidence available about the duties was the appellant's affidavit in the evidence in which he stated that when the defect occurred, he had to carry out water, electrical inspection and repair work when there was a letter of employment appointment. It shows that his duties are of a caretaker nature, a fact that he did test or test. Worked by other laborers or occasionally repaired in the boiler, kept, it will not make him a worker. Appeal against the Labor Court order dismissed
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
