ABDUL RAZZAQ versus DEPUTY MANAGER (OPERATION) FESCO
Section Ozs 8 (2) and 15 (3) (e) Employee of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), removal of employment complaint on absent from sections 33 and 47 of duty, which is paid in full with 120 The leave was granted for the day, he left for a further period of two years without the salary of a detained solicitor; the application for retaining the employee's leave was neither approved nor denied. And the employee is assuming that the vacation he was given has been granted to him, did not re-enter his duties. The former job was removed from the job when the employees were left in his leave account for 784 days. Credit was received, could not apply for extension of employee leave, but either accept or reject it in accordance with Standing Order 8 (2) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, 1968 Of course, it became more and more necessary to talk of rejecting an employee's request. And he would not be absent without leave, unless he was informed that his request was rejected, unless his request was accepted, the employee was not entitled to have his request approved by him. That the employer's failure to speak of his dismissal after requesting a request for leave, the employee should not have been sentenced to dismissal from employment, but the imposition of mandatory retirement penalties would have done much to the justice. , Because it corresponds to the attractiveness of employee mismanagement. The decision was set aside and the employee's complaint application was allowed on the condition that the employee be dismissed from the job.
