Find a Lawyer

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, WAPDA (E), 3RD CIRCLE, LAHORE versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3A) Placing the Ex-Proceedings Separate Failure to Appear in Court for Complaint Complaint by the Employee Against Plaintiff, to Keep Ex-Parts Separated The application was filed within one month of passing the former party order against the reasons for his absence in court at the date of the hearing, but his application was dismissed by the Labor Court in which the earlier proceedings were dismissed. The petition for separation was made and even though the party to whom the proceedings were made, he had made such There was a certain degree of slowdown in keeping the riots separate, but it cannot be said that they were legally barred from taking such a step, if such a request could not be declared unforgivable. Is. In fact, the delimitation was made within a fixed period of time. The matter should be decided on merit rather than merit. While on the job, Airy applied to the Labor Court to stop the previous proceedings from time to time. Should have been allowed to fight the case and there was no justification for the employee / complaint applicant to provide them with an employer and prevent them from taking their stand. The Labor Appellate Tribunal submitted that the Labor Appellate Tribunal had filed a labor court order under this modification jurisdiction before The decree stipulated that action be taken under the complaint. Complaint filed by the employee against the employer who law websites from Mubarik Pur lawyer