Find a Lawyer

HASHMI CAN COMPANY EMPLOYEES\' UNION versus HASHMI CAN COMPANY LTD.

Section 22A (8) (G) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedures and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regular 32 (2) (C) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Section O 11 A Closing Establishment Order to Apply Against Practicing Unlawful Wages by the Employer The parties approved by the Labor Court on the employees' request were challenged by the union that the labor court's order to close the establishment by union Had approved. The instructions received by the applicant union were in the nature of a declaration, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission, because the Commission had no jurisdiction to re-employ the employer or to provide employment notice. Could not give Refer to the Labor Court that allowed the closure of the Establishment employees should either contact L The court should be relevant to the contempt of court or criminal offense or appropriate for re-employment on a union-based service. Should refer to the Labor Court, which did not provide any examples of alleged unfair labor by the establishment under section 22A (8). (G) The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not enforceable if it had re-employed the employees after the closure of the Establishment, a petition for contempt of court for the applicants by contempt of court or any other The action was to be entered which was allowed to close. Such an application could not be filed under the Establishment Down, but Section 22A (8) (G), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. law firms from Village Sunder lawyer