see what you want to see believe all you see
My current Mission is keep wining until S_P 斗/close shop
use main & sub method unit 1 unit= $20:
Use main bet as base the rest side bet to add on to max win or more Name it Eye jackpot system 南神眼



betting records at
http://forums.asianbookie.com/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=45&Topic=2112557

Mr Zhang’s son told the court that his father had been the only security guard assigned to the factory, required to be on duty 24 hours a day, with no opportunity to leave his post.

Since the guardroom also served as his living quarters, any personal activity — such as meeting his girlfriend — had to take place there.

“As an adult male, it was normal for my father to have emotional needs,” the son said during the proceedings. “He remained at his post and never left the workplace.”

He stated that rest is a worker’s right, and romantic interaction should be considered a form of psychological and physical recovery, similar to eating or sleeping.

Source: Xesai on Canva, for illustration purposes only

Therefore, although his father was engaged in a personal act, he was still within his workplace and during working hours, fulfilling the conditions for a presumptive work injury under Article 15 of the Work-related Injury Insurance Scheme.

Compensated for father’s untimely death

The court ruled in favour of Mr Zhang’s son, determining that his father’s sudden death qualified as a work-related injury.

Since the death occurred during working hours and at the workplace, it fulfilled the legal conditions for a presumptive industrial accident.

Although the security company and the bureau filed an appeal, the court upheld the original verdict, affirming that Mr Zhang’s 24-hour duty arrangement left no separation between his work and personal life.

On 24 Feb 2017, the bureau complied with the ruling and issued an official certificate formally recognising Mr Zhang’s death as a workplace-related incident.

While the exact amount of compensation awarded to the family has not been publicly disclosed, the case set a precedent in the interpretation of work injury law under exceptional job conditions.