Find a Lawyer

SHAH ZULAM KHAN versus HUSSAIN WEAVING AND FINISHING MILLS

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 2 and 25 Appellant's Maintenance of a Complaint Request asking for a full refund after the employee's refusal, claiming that he is a contractor employee and refuses to resume his duty. It was alleged that some of the lists were based on contracts provided to them and that such lists were not prepared nor did any contractor test their cross-inspection to prove the dispute, alleging that These contractors are actually employees of the employer whose fact that the employer's witness denied, but the test The rhythm was not rejected. Under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, one of the contractors was defined as Definition of Worker Def, even otherwise, those employees who were hired by a contractor where the terms of employment were expressed or Was reinforced, it was not illegal for the employer to refuse the duty of the appellant in writing was available for the order terminator who was ordered to reinstate the appellant for any reason. There is no specific evidence that the appellant was unemployed or in a gainful employment; So the benefits were awarded famous lower court advocate from Astore lawyer