Find a Lawyer

EHSAN UR REHMAN versus CDA

Sections 15 and 22A (8) (g) were dismissed by employees at the residence allotted to employees alleging inappropriate labor practice in the name of Section 22A (8) (G) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. ) Was filed by the same employee. , In 1969, alleging that he was allotted the place because it was canceled because he was an active member of the Employees Union, which the union named as the NIRC's collecting bargaining agent. As a single bench, it was accepted that the application filed by this job was accepted, in which it did not merge. Although the allotted single bench had accepted the application filed by the employees under section 22A (8) (g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it did not specify the name of the employees The allotment was dismissed as an unlawful practice and the order merely observed that the employee, being an active member of the employees, engaged in unfair and illegal trade union activities but not a specific instance No Activities My bald statement was quoted as saying that a laborer would trade without explaining any of his trade union activities. Yin was an active member who potentially could force the employer to take any negative action against her, do not bring the Industrial Relations Ordinance section 15 of the circle. , 1969, was unable to deal with unfair labor practice under section 22A (8) (g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. when you need a advocate from Morgah lawyer