Find a Lawyer

MUHAMAD HANEEF versus SETH HAJI ABDUL RAHEEM

Section 46 and (service ()) request for an exemption from service, dismissal of the appellant who was a permanent employee and an active trade unionist in the Establishment, verifying the service complaint request by the appellant against the employment dismissal order. Dismissed, dismissed by the Labor Court, the appellant had filed an appeal against him that the appellant had furnished evidence of his dismissal in which he had confirmed the content of his complaint application, But the Establishment neither inspected the appellant nor added any evidence to support his case, if the evidence If not challenged, the Opposition Establishment neither cross-examined nor would have included any evidence on the oath in support of its case, nor would it have verified the evidence on record by the appellant. However, it was necessary to accept the Appellant's version from the Labor Court. The filing of a written statement by Astiel could not be treated as proof that the written statements and documents which were attached to the Establishment, no. The result of not being worthwhile was the labor court did not follow the law and that law Proceeded to decide the case of infringement and the verdict against the evidence on record was defective. The High Court responsible for the reversal had put aside the Labor Court's appeal and allowed a complaint. Because it has been fully proved that after the dismissal of the job the appellant remained without any alternative employment despite his best efforts. It will take 15 months \ wage agreement online advocate from Bisham lawyer