GLAXO SMITH KLINE PAKISTAN LIMITED versus SINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SINDH
Sections 15 (3) (f) and (4) Complaint application dismissed on 23 12 2003 Issue of notice Notices Issued 21 Consultation Letters between 223 incidents and 159 spreading over 10 years late in 15 11 2001 Is referenced. Due notice of the petitioner's request was banned by the applicant in 1991 and 17 1 2001, due to the then illegal industrial and commercial employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, the temporary delay in attendance in 1968 Was declared, according to the showcase notice, that the applicant had been late for one day, every month of January, February and May, 2001 and two days in each month of August, September and October, 2001, while his last delay was The mention was made as of 19 2001 10 2001 ie, within one month of the issuance of such notice, the habit was permanent and permanently the facts were settled. It will not be customary to restrict the dates of all the dates up to a month before such notice, unless standing alone with a single fact where the habit was the culmination of mismanagement, then Such last event must occur within a period of one month; before such notice the applicant's late date of attendance was 10 2001 10 2001, thus, not restricted by notice of 15 11 2001. ? The timely warning under section 15 (2) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance was not one of the prescribed punishment; the 1968 disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were not carried out on the basis of consultation letters during which period. There were 223 late comments from the petition. Each year, on average, 2 to 3 late tasks take 10 years
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
