Find a Lawyer

HASHIMI CAN COMPANY EMPLOYEES\' UNION versus HASHIMI CAN COMPANY

Section O11 Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 22A (8) (g) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedures and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln 32 (2) (c) Interim Prohibited Order, Applicants Employees 'Approval Union claimed that the Applicants' Union had also alleged that employers were pressuring the union to abstain from employing employees on the basis of financial damages on the basis of alleged financial damages. The last time applicant unions agreed to mass retrieval of senior workers was that only the fire, machinery malfunction, civil unrest or control was restored. Lowther if the employer and decreased production due to lack of order that justified the claim. The employer rejected the application filed by the Union in relation to the goods manufactured at the company and the employer was facing financial problems and financial hardship Financial Difficulties and Uniformity National Trade Relations Commission (Rules and Functions) Regulations, 1973 The provisional prohibition order issued to the applicant's union against was rejected. In relation to forcing the union to sign a settlement by the employer, proof is required, which can be decided at the time of final disposal of the application under Section 22A (8) (g), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 ? list of advocates from Mian Walli lawyer