SADDAT HUSSAIN KAZMI versus SINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANISATION
Section 1, CL (4) of the Payment of Salary Act, 1936, the claim of the applicant's wages under the Payment of Wages Act and the Labor Court was excluded on the basis that the payment of salaries was the responsibility of the respondent organization. Whether the defendant was factory or not, as a matter of fact, a decision can be made after adding evidence authority under the Payment Wages Act, however, the question asked after allowing the evidence is decided. But decided to dismiss the appeal because the respondent did not have a factory to do some work such as factories The packing or packing of goods obtained from it under section 12 (a) of the T and the supply of the respondents under it was not forbidden to continue the manufacturing process; the fact is that the respondent had the opportunity Should have No such opportunity was given by the authority to present evidence on this question; the order of dismissal of the applicant's claim by the Oath was not valid as well as the Labor Court, both orders were set aside. And according to the law and after the parties had the opportunity, the authority was remanded to dismiss the matter.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
