Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus AL-KARAM TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 Termination Appellant was allegedly withheld from the gate and was not allowed to resume duty without a written order. Respondents requested a Labor Court complaint because Labor resisted. The Court concluded that the appellant was. Was not employed with the defendant on the basis of the appointment order or any other document prepared, only in support of the appellant's claim that the evidence was an extract of the beam register which was the record of the defendant's establishment and from which it was signed It appears that he has worked as a manager. Respondents were examined only by him, he did not deny, explain or say anything about entry into the beam register, saying that there was no evidence to show that when some quantity of clothing was allegedly produced. Employees' services were terminated or rescheduled by the respondents when the contract was awarded. 2 Contractor Appellant had been in the service of the respondents for the past two years and had made a request to the Authority to issue the appointment letter beam register. In which the appellant was signing, there was sufficient evidence that the appellant was the defendant's employee. Even if the appeal was a temporary employee can not be terminated without hip services. Applicant reinstated in writing with fifty percent back benefits property advocate from Mustang lawyer