Find a Lawyer

E.F.U. GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. versus SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.V

Sections 46, 47 (3) and 48 of the West Pakistan Industrial Animal Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Section O15 (3) (e) after the charge sheet for the Appeal Services dismissed. He was dismissed. After conducting an inquiry against him on corruption charges and recording the evidence by the Labor Court, it was concluded that the dismissal was not guaranteed under the law, for his alleged misconduct with other staff members on the job. The charge served the job. And the late attendance was excluded by the employer; there was no justification for the employer to issue another charge sheet for the late employees, some 15 minutes before the administration's permission. Absent and applied for maternity leave acceptable under the law, but his request was not approved The entire record was required for PU before issuing a charge sheet on allegations of corruption and Intended to commit to its overall performance before being absent - to reopen the employee's previous record No justification for leaving the first charge sheet for, simple absence without air habits or intentional intent, under section O15 (3) (e) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 No misconduct, only intentional and minor absence from duty without leave, was to be treated as 'mismanagement' The Inquiry Officer could not be searched. Employer's misconduct and adverse action against the employee are not fair and sustainable in terms of law and justice. patent advocate from Khair Pur Mir lawyer