Find a Lawyer

MAHBOOB SHAH, GENERAL SECRETARY, ITTEHAD EMPLOYEES\' UNION V.A. TECH VOEST (MCE GMBH) BROTHA ATTOCK versus THE SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, V.A. TECH. VOEST (MCE GMBH), MAIN OFFICE BROTHA, ATTOCK

A petition filed by employees under Section 22A (8) (G) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in which the application was rejected by the employees against the practice of unfair labor. That the employees were requested under the authority letter. The general secretary of the union was given the authority to apply under section 22A (8) (g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but said that all the documents along with the petition, establishment application, affidavit and interim etc. Also signed by someone else. This authority letter was not confirmed by the two witnesses and it was also stated that the authority letter had no legal effect on the legal defects, the employees presented a copy of the national secret card of the general secretary union to give evidence. That the person in the authority letter had the name above. The employer's objection to his surname was without issue and the lawyer was responsible for rejecting Nutanama in favor of the advocate, not only signed by the General Secretary's Union, but signed by all employees 22A (8) (G) was also signed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 so the objections raised by employers in respect of letters / errors in the powers were not fatal defects and could be removed / corrected at any stage. The provisions relating to the signing and validation of applications, were matters only if the application was made by or on behalf of the employees. Was not signed by anyone authorized by them and was told that the defect was discovered before final order was made by signing the ees and modifying the request. famous supreme court advocate from Diamer lawyer