Find a Lawyer

HAMEED-UR-REHMAN KHAN, ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT ACE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI versus ASSOCIATED CONSULTING ENGINEERS OF ACE (PVT.) LTD,

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 22A (8) (g) National Industrial Relations Commission (Regulations and Duties) Regulations, 1973, Region 32 (2) (c) Unlawful Labor Practice Transitional Prohibition Order, Applicant / Employee's Grant Were refinished again. In the presence of the applicants, under the return policy formulated by the employer establishment, he alleged that he had been victimized by the activities of his trade union and that the employer establishment had been unfairly employed by the employer. The process requires that its interim injunction be issued confirming the employer should be barred from taking action against Emplo, the employee who at the time of the first employment was the union's finance secretary in the employer establishment, even though he was a union Was an active member of, but did not have an office for when the employee was a union official Yes, no action was taken against him because of his trade union activities became a target of D-union activity, at that time when the employee was only an active member of the union and had no official, anything. It was not on record to show that he had been victimized by his trade union activities as he was alleged. The person who refrained from panchayat policy had approached the Labor Court challenging his recovery as an illegal movement of unfair labor by the employees, the employee had failed to prove that he was Was hunted down due to his trade union activities, interim injunction was passed to him and Ehsan was called back top advocates from Khuiratta lawyer