Sections 46, 47 (3) and 48 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII 1968), requesting the removal of the section O12 service, the appellant alleged that he was removed from the job without written notice or order. has been given. In violation of the mandatory provisions of Standing Order 12 (3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the employee claimed that a notice of complaint was sent to the employer through a registered post, but by the employer She filed a complaint when no response was received. The application was rejected by the Labor Court on the grounds that the employer did not receive a notice of complaint request, nor did the employee prove the employer's receipt by the Labor Court that the notice itself was sent. Not enough compliance. And since no complaint was taken notice of the employer, the request for complaint was not admissible and notice of the same complaint was presented to the employer, considering that the Labor Court concluded that it was recognized by the employer. It was reported that the employee was their employee. Establishment of a relationship with the employees and employer and the employee was removed from his service in violation of the provisions of Section 12 (3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, 1968. The designated order of was set aside was allowed to find the last draw for the 25 month salary payment. And the house rent, if acceptable, was paid to the employee in lieu of restitution by the employee within a period of 30 days.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
