MUHAMMAD NASIR versus PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL KARACHI
Section 25 (8) (g) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Regulations and Duties) Regulations, 1973, Regulation 32 (2) after practicing unfair practice by employers, filing an application charge sheet against an employee and investigating them. Dismissed from employment. The employee participated in the inquiry proceedings on a charge of absence from duty for a period of twelve days and acknowledged his signature on the inquiry process that the employee had failed to produce a document to show. That the administration had arrested him in a criminal case. The alleged period of absence of employment, as claimed by management, was to prove to the employee that his absence was beyond his resources and control, but he failed to do so by employers. The alleged misconduct and discriminatory employee was entitled to legal action against the employee to take action against the employee and was bound by the laws and regulations of the business. The issue of course and law was well settled on the issue of disciplinary action and role of the National Industrial Relations Commission. There was no existing case in which to take any disciplinary action against the administration under the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission. Can be processed. An employee, allegedly committing misconduct, cannot be placed in a judicial evaluation by an application under section 25 (8) (g) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 under both jurisdiction and competence.
Related judgments — National Industrial Relations Commission, 2010
