Find a Lawyer

BRIG. (R.) SAKHI MARJAN, CEO, PESCO, PESHAWAR versus MANAGING DIRECTOR PEPCO, LAHORE

Article 4 (185 ()) terminated the contractual non-employment service employed in the corporation on contractual treatment and was terminated on the basis of the restriction raised by the applicant that no formal inquiry was conducted. Due to which they missed the opportunity to hear it. It was not necessary that the inquiry should be held in each case as it depends on the circumstances of each case, so the services of an employee can be terminated without regular inquiry so that the competent authority can prevent such inquiry especially. When charged. The employee proved on the basis of documentary evidence that the employee may not serve in a constitutional or civil jurisdiction to recover from service restitution, in the absence of a corporation, violation of law or any legal regulation, such employee Can only claim damages against the work. Termination or Termination The High Court Made a Decision It Was Claimed to Interfere with the Use of Constitutional Jurisdiction to Enforce Contract Restriction

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• WATAN PARTY v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLD 997
• RAEES-UD-DIN v. NASREEN ANWAR 2011 SCMR 998
• SABIR HUSSAIN alias SABRI v. State 2011 SCMR 1003
• GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. (Now KPK) through its Chief Secretary v. KALEEM SHAH 2011 SCMR 1004
• MUBASHIR AHMAD v. Syed MUHAMMAD SHAH 2011 SCMR 1009
• STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v. JAVAID IQBAL 2011 SCMR 1013
• (SUO MOTU ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT OF PRESCRIBED MINIMUM WAGES TO THE SECURITY GUARDS WORKING IN PTC 2011 SCMR 1016
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ v. State 2011 SCMR 1019

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

jobs for fresh advocates from Tharo Shah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes