Sections 46 (1), (6) and (7) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII of 1968), Section 0 12 Service termination of the Complaint Request Maintenance Service Employees who implement the order of rehabilitation Services were terminated, filed. The complaint request, which was allowed by the Labor Court to instruct that the employee be immediately reinstated with fullback benefits, was restored, but only three days later, the employee's services were denied. Were terminated, allegedly due to the employer's closure of the plant / establishment establishment filed an appeal before the Labor Appellate Tribunal, and the establishment was granted a steel order only in connection with the settlement. In the meantime, the Punjab Labor Appellate Tribunal was abolished and the pending cases, including the employees' cases, were transferred to the High Court Establishment. The appeal filed by the Labor Court against it was withdrawn, which was decided by the Establishment. The appeal was finalized after it was withdrawn. According to the law it should be a process of rehabilitation, not an empty formality, but it should not be a routine or embarrassing process for three days, when the employee's appeal was still pending and the establishment withdrew. Yes, the Labor Court order has been finalized, stating that the facts reflect economic rumors of the Establishment, which equates to constitutional fraud, even under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Terms and Conditions will not be changed. The termination of the postponement, which was made three days after the service was reinstated, had no legal effect.
