Section 41 and (55 ()) ()) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI, 1968)), Section O15 (2) (3) (E) of the Appellate Tribunal of the Labor from a service complaint request. The appellant / reviewer, who was a timekeeper in the establishment, was dismissed for two charges, and said he made false entries in a holiday search in which he participated in six workers. And second, that he was absent from duty for more than 10 days, upon filing a employment complaint complaint against the employer, the Labor Court accepted the complaint request, dismissing the dismissal order. And based on the evidence, he reinstated it with the halfback Labor Court. The record concludes that the allegation of inaccurate entries was not based on solid evidence and that the employee did nothing intentionally, even otherwise, it could only be attempted by false entries, Was not an accused under the Relations Act, 2008. The employee could only be called for two days, which did not fall under misconduct under section O (15) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, the documents presented on the 1968 record proved that the employer They were very angry. With the employee and wanted to get rid of him, the entire action against the employee was proved by a scandalous inquiry, in which case the Labor Court, which could not violate the wishes of the employers, reached a fair and fair conclusion. I was hurt and it was perfectly valid and legally appealing to employers to examine the evidence, scan the records and appreciate the arguments. Labor Corps
