Find a Lawyer

A.D. ABU BAKR WEAVING versus BANARAS KHAN

Sections 46 (5), 47 (3) and 62 Service Maintenance The Appointment Appeal was appealed to the employees of the High Court stating that the employer had terminated their services, while the fact was denied that the employees were terminated. Were not done. But the employee himself was not interested in the job and he wanted to withdraw the money from the employer. The grievance complaint filed by the employee was allowed by the Labor Court under the direction of rehabilitation under section 46 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 and It was paid to pay it. In addition to the 12-month last salary, the benefits of the termination date also argued that the Labor Court had erred in law by giving two reliefs to employees at the same time as the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Under section 46 (5) of 2002, the employer was entitled to compensation for restitution, whereas in the present case the employee's services were not terminated by the employer. The ND employer was ready and willing to accept him as one of his employees, and his advice acknowledged that the employees were instructed to join the employer because the employer The point was that the employee's services were never terminated and the employer was ready and willing to accept him in his stay; the employees, under the circumstances, were not entitled to provide back benefits through the High Court. The impound order was fixed to instruct employees to join the establishment \ r \ n \ r \ n famous lower court advocate from Theing Jattan More lawyer