JAMSHED RAZA versus NAIMUL HAQ
The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 38 (3A) allegations of violation of the settlement period between the employer establishment were reached and the CBA court issued only action against the informant and the court's order challenged that any evidence was proved. Was not intended to cause and it was none. Matter is that the term of the settlement that was allegedly infringed did not exist in the settlement. Whether this is binding or not, the evidence of the parties can be guided only after this, and while the evidence is still available, there was no chance of interference on that occasion. The provision of section 38 (3A) of the Ordinance provides that, even otherwise, the appellate tribunal was empowered to assert the facts, the truthfulness, legality or full status of an order and as such Nothing was understandable, under section (38 (aa)) capable of rejecting the application
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
jobs for fresh advocates from Garh More lawyer
