MUKHTAR AHMAD versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Section 2 (i) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 2 (xxviii) 25 Appellant based on the nature of the duties he was performing, whether considered as a \ labor worker \ which required work. The appellant was doing that. Monitor the contractor's work and see that he or she is performing the work in accordance with the drawing, etc. The work performed by the appellant involved no expertise, nor did he employ any of the scholarly or manual appellants, even though the checked bills and measurements, his work was largely of a caretaker nature. And did not include personal labor, which was related to the work done by workers / laborers, examination of the duties of the appellant revealed that his work did not include routine or manual work. Rather, the appellant was required to oversee the work done by the mind and others, therefore, a "laborer" High Court could not confirm the effect. Not sure
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
