AMIR NAEEM versus PIAC THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
Section 32, 32, & Q & (54 (E) Convention of Evidence (10 of 1984), Article 129 General Clause Act (X of 1897), Section 27 Employers' unfair labor action, non-prosecution application) The petitioner's position for the removal of the application against the removal was that since the notice was not delivered to the applicant for the hearing of the petition, it was not determined by the applicant or his lawyer to appear on the date. Was deliberately and deliberately and entitled to return the said case for illegal proceedings, entitled to return, gambling to the applicant at the address given Notice was issued The office copy of the notice stated that the notice was forwarded to the applicant at his correct official address, mentioned in the title of his application, for the hearing at 10.30 am on the date. Was visited and summoned repeatedly, but no one appeared for the applicant, no notice was given by the applicant's lawyer because of the importance of the applicant in his application for failure to attend. Yes, he did not specifically state that he was not given a notice to settle the matter. And the special request for non-delivery of notice to the applicant for the first time during the petition was taken during the petition when it was said that the request is for hearing. Postponement of assistance encountered. He said the request for rehabilitation of the case had been dealt with after it became flawed
Related judgments — National Industrial Relations Commission, 2013
