Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HANIF versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Articles 25A, 37 (3) and 38 (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Complaint Petition, Appeal dismissed before the Labor Appellate Tribunal Complaint Request by the Applicant Source was removed, the applicant had it. Labor Appellate Tribunal The Labor Appellate Tribunal previously dismissed the appeal. Previously, the applicant's request for a complaint was timely barred. Secondly, the complainant did not sign the notice and the third was that the applicant himself had sought retirement complaint notice and the complaint was tiled almost four years after the date when the applicant resumed duty. If not allowed to do so, the complaint notice was not acknowledged, the petitioner's complaint was not signed, the signature of the affected employee, legal notice was not found that the applicant's retirement was made on his own request as the petitioner wrote. The letter of retirement showed that the applicant was not on record Capable of citing a booth or document under which it can be said that the observations of the Labor Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the applicant dismissed the appeal were not appropriate or of the record order passed by the Chairman, Labor Appellate Tribunal. Were hypocrites. The constitutional jurisdiction cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of PK, which was subject to misunderstanding and was not considered, without any provision. jobs for fresh advocates from Barkhan lawyer