MUKHTAR AHMAD versus HABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH PRESIDENT
Sections 41 and 54 (3) (i) Habib Bank Limited Staff Service Rules, 1981, R37 Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Order) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Section O 15 (2), (3) (a) ( 1) The compulsory retirement Chicago plea was mandated on the job upon appeal to the employee after filing a showcase notice to the employees and presenting to the employee after an inquiry based on allegations of loose administration, negligence and concealment of facts. Further evidence of an appropriate opportunity was provided, but chose not to do so. And some of the entries in his cross-examination show that the employee had in fact admitted to the allegations leveled against him, the results filed by the Labor Court on the request of those complaints, in the circumstances, were not for any exception. Was open and retained, however, the employee was an employee for more than 26 years in the bank and was not on record to show anything except in the present case the employees had been missing out on their entire career and Was never censored for any commission work, industrial and industrial under sub-clause (i) of Standing Clause 3 Order 15 of the Aarti Job (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was declared negligent in negligence or negligence in the work, but virtual retirement was not provided as punishment under the Standing Ordinance Ordinance, 1968. Retirement penalty punished. The employee, who has had a long association with the employer bank for more than 26 years, demonstrated strong sentencing and, in a lower step, will meet the faces of the justice, who will meet the charges.
Related judgments — Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab, 2011
