Find a Lawyer

UNITED BANK LIMITED versus AZIZ AHMED SHEIKH

Section 47 and (47 ()) unauthorized benefits prevented the confirmation of a Labor Court-approved order, under which the court ruled that if the legitimate benefits were unnecessary due to the aggravated employee, But that cannot be denied. The follow-up order for the complaint application to apply was uncertain and vague as it did not indicate what benefits / facilities were legally allowed to employees. The order was rejected by the applicant / bank. Such order was not lasting. The matter was remanded to the Labor Court, with the instruction that the employee freely request details of its benefits / benefits. Submit which is legally valid.

Related judgments — Punjab, 2012

• ZAHID ALI v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NANKANA SAHIB 2012 PLC(CS) 839
• IMRAN ASHRAF v. LAHORE MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS 2012 PLC 35
• CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MEPCO, MULTAN v. ALLAH BACHAYA SAJJAD 2012 PLC 40
• MUHAMMAD ASGHAR v. WYETH PAKISTAN LIMITED 2012 PLC 47
• HEAD HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MCB BANK, LAHORE v. MUHAMMAD SHEHZAD 2012 PLC 114
• TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, CHINIOT v. QASIM ALI 2012 PLC 121
• GHULAM SARWAR v. GENERAL MANAGER, ITTEHAD CHEMICAL (PVT.) LIMITED 2012 PLC 124
• EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (WORKS AND SERVICES) DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, JHANG v. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ 2012 PLC 147

All Punjab judgments of 2012 →

when you need a advocate from Ghizer lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes