Find a Lawyer

HAYE SONS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, JETHA BHUTTA, KHARIPUR versus PRESIDING OFFICER, PUNJAB LABOUR COURT NO.8, BAHAWALPUR

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 Application for Transfer of Cases Employees Requesting Transfer of Labor Court to Labor Court instead of BB Place - M \ - on the basis that the Presiding Officer of Labor Court place B \ Had Employers seeking prejudice against employers did not keep a single record passed by the Labor Court during proceedings in the Labor Court for alleged discrimination, misconduct or hatred against employees seeking transfer of cases. Argued that prejudice is necessary in the mind of the judge, it cannot be proved in the case of concrete examples, but it can be inferred or assimilated by Judge Hold's conduct, even though for the affected party It may not be possible to establish alleged bias or prejudice by a presiding officer of a court, Even after applying the principles of justice, the decision had to be made because the party was not satisfied with this approach. It would not be enough for the judge to make any assertion against his independence or integrity, because if such assumptions, If a practice is approved, hardly any presiding officer will be present in court who will be protected from such charges. Perform your duties and administer justice with peace in a harassment-free environment. It is of utmost importance to protect your liberty and integrity from shameful statements, baseless statements and baseless allegations and alleged prejudice. There is no precedent or claim that prejudice by the Presiding Officer of the Labor Court cannot be claimed by the Labor Court attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Chakwal lawyer