Find a Lawyer

CRESCENT GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED versus SHAKILA

The Labor Court granted the respondent's request for termination of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O12 (3) Industrial, Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 25 Services and was granted Was restored to the job. Fullback Benefits Appellant resisted the Labor Court's challenging order and defendant's complaint request because he was a caretaker and not a worker and, therefore, the provisions of the West Pakistan Ordinance Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable to him. In response to his cross-examination, the defendant denied the suggestion. That she worked as a supervisor in the factory, claiming that there was no evidence of her duty as a manual and knowledgeable appellant to prove that the work done by the defendant was merely in nature. Was under surveillance, it was pointed out by both parties to the evidence that, it was pointed out that the defendant was doing manual work which could not be considered work related. Sub-work for a supervisor and instead of supervision. In addition to manual and academic work, the name of the respondents was the list of permanent workers issued by the Registrar Trade Union. I was also shown as a "laborer" and the appellant did not challenge it in the appeal. Or under protest, the respondent will be entitled to the provisions of section 12 (3) of Standing Order Ordinance VI of 1968, there is no reason to terminate the services of the respondents, its order of dismissal was not an amendable order and its Maintenance of respondent \ service is maintained online advocate from Abdul Hakim lawyer