MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED versus ASHRAF HUSSAIN
Section O15 Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), Sections 33 and 47 Service Complaint Complaint An employee working at a bank was dismissed from the job after chargesheeted and charged against him, parallel banking. And other allegations of serious misconduct were investigated. It was accepted by the Labor Court against the employee's dismissal order and was reinstated with the benefits of a backdrop, after the full opportunity to hear the trial proceedings, the end and the end, the fair and the parties. The Inquiry Officer had both kept the version of the juxtaposition with documentary evidence and the Inquiry Officer had not expressed any irritation, prejudice or unlawful will against the employee. Each page of the proceedings was signed by the inquiry officer, the employee and the prosecutor, in which case it could not be. They say that they were not provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their defense, that the evidence against the employee was proved that the Labor Court seemed to be in the custody of the technical matters only and before the inquiry officer enough. Didn't bother to understand / visualize the evidence. At the same time, the court also held that the employee was in the habit of misappropriating bank clients' money by using fraudulent practices. There was no substance to the charge that the officer approving the dismissal was in accordance with the rules. Was not eligible The bank prosecution had sued the employee in view of all aspects of the case, even though the employee's technical fraud had led to
Related judgments — Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab, 2012
