HEAD MASTER SANDAL COLLGE, FAISALABAD versus SHAHID MAJEED ASLAM
Section 2 (xxxi), 44, 45, 46 and 47 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Section 2 (i), termination of section O-15 service, whether the complainant appeals the complaint. After the teachers 'services were questioned against them it was alleged that they had been found guilty of resolving the papers of the two students in the admission test, the Labor Court had requested the teachers' complaint against its suspension orders. Accepted and restored the job with compensation upon his support. On the basis that teachers were unfairly punished, other people who were involved in immoral and illegal practices were excluded. And the employer filed an appeal against the Labor Court decision. The appellant's employer believed that the Labor Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the teachers' complaint, as the teacher / laborer did not fall in the definition of justification where the services / labor termination were terminated, He could have resorted to the Labor Court, provided he was a worker, as defined in section 2 (i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, the provisions of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. Its section 2 (xxxi) was not related to a teacher's mental-job-related work as a definition of a laborer, and it cannot be said that the teacher was engaged in any manual and academic work by a teacher. I was not in the terms of section 2 (i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance Ordinance, 1968, and the Labor Court could not accept any jurisdiction in the case in which the teacher confessed his guilt, was fraudulent. Condemnation
Related judgments — Labour Appellant Tribunal Punjab, 2014
