Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS versus PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 employees challenged them to stop the practice (uniforms) as well as to stop the payment of washing allowances through their complaints petition. Employees claimed that they had in the past. They have been receiving these two facilities and their prevention was illegal. Employers opposed the request for a complaint, arguing that employees were not eligible to receive `` uniform get '' because they were provided by Furnessman, in which they were provided with 'apron canvas, Whereby they were entitled to the provisions contained in the provisions of the clothing regulation. 1960s bookers also urged that because of the change in the basic pay scale of employees, they are not eligible for 'washing allowance'. The trial court accepted the employees' claim in connection with the 'washing allowance'. , But denied their delivery claim. Uniform Appellate Tribunal allows employees 'claims in relation to gross drill (uniform), observing that at the relevant time it is said that the' Clothing Regula was not manufactured by the Ten Book Employers of the 1960s. That such appellate tribunal's observation cannot be justified / excused for not applying the provisions of the said book because the legal rules and regulations had to be considered by the tribunal. The decision of the parties was declared illegal because of the unanimous consent of the parties to the question on the application of the Clothing Regulation Book 1960 case and after giving the parties the opportunity to make the opportunity to make a reference, they demanded a new judgment of the case. had gone. Dress Regulation Book of 1960s and its :: Introduction famous high court advocate from Mingora lawyer