Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF versus PAKISTAN RAILWAYS AND OTHERS

Sections 1 (4) (D), 2 (XXX) and 49 (4) (E) petitioners against the restoration of an unfair labor practice application by employers prematurely from 29 to 2002. Applied for retirement but his request was rejected by the employees. In another petition, petitioner again amended his pre-retirement date from 30 2003 2003, as the show cause notice applied against him, which was accepted and applied from 30 2003 to 2003. Premature retirement notices were issued, and 180 days for disclosure of their leave were withheld by employers, from which they were named and directed to deduct applicant's pension benefits. (A) the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, to reject the pleadings, claiming that the applicant had been asked by the Commission to resolve his complaint after retirement. Cannot promise, if any unlawful applicant of any unlawful labor practice for being unemployed because of his absence after retirement, against his employer or because of his trade union activities. The question was not born, which was associated with his service which was no more. Field and a retired employee were excluded from the jurisdiction of the Commission because the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 could not reach the National National Relations Commission petition filed by the applicant, under section 49 (4 (e)), was excluded. best advocate from Tarnol lawyer