ASMATULLAH versus G.M., PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL, PESHAWAR
Sections 25A, 37 (3) and 38 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII 1968), Section O15 (3) (a) (h) and (4) Termination of Service on Complaint for Corruption Applicant / employee's job was terminated after she filed a charge sheet and inquired against her when she was the General Secretary of the Workers' Union, threatening its dire consequences to a carpenter's carpenter shop worker. , On which the appellant's action was declared a crime. Under the Standing Order 15 (3) (a) (h) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the complaint filed by the unauthorized appellant was rejected by the Labor Court under which the Standing Order 15 Clause ( 4) Clause. The Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, required the nomination of a co-worker in the inquiry, to assist the worker in the inquiry process, but this was not the case. On the contrary, that made the whole process unsuccessful. The appellant was alleged to have threatened dire consequences, which is not to be charged with mismanagement under the provisions of Order 15 (3) (a) (h) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing) Order. ? Orders, Ordinance, 1968 The judgment and order passed by the Labor Court were set aside, the complaint request was accepted and the order to terminate the service of the appellant was set aside and the statement before the oath I was reinstated as an appellant with all the benefits. The Labor Court had said that she was jobless since her dismissal
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
