MCB BANK LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEY versus SAAD AKHTAR QURESHI
Section 2 (xxx), 46 and 48 Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII 1968), Section 2 (i) and Section O 15 (3) Application for Complaint for Termination of Employees Determination of Labor Appeal as Employee, Who was appointed Branch Manager at the bank, was dismissed from the job after making false charge sheet on absence of duty and on false false remittance / prepayment process, the employee was ordered to terminate his job. The complaint was filed against him, which was accepted and accepted by the Labor Court. The order was put aside and the employee was restored to work. Along with all the benefits, the bank filed an appeal against the Labor Court's decision that the Labor Court has no jurisdiction over the matter because the employee is entitled to the employee's "labor" in view of the duties performed by it. " was not. The bank claimed that the employee was a power of attorney holder on behalf of the bank, just enough to prove that he was not a 'worker'. The scope created by it was ignored by the Labor Court and in determining the status of the employee who suffered the untimely decision of the evidence, it was necessary to identify the nature of the duties and the powers entrusted to him. And to prove the relevant point of view, the two sides submitted numerous documents in addition to the oral evidence. The most important piece of evidence on record was an alleged power-of-attorney executed by a bank in favor of an employee, which was overlooked by Labor. The court, on the basis that the bank did not present any witnesses, would be called in its presence
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
