Find a Lawyer

RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS C0. LTD. versus ALI AHMED

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A & 38 (3) The request for a complaint against exchange was transferred to a specific category of workman in another category, which in turn changes the nature of the duties and, as a development worker, There is no explanation for the delay in the notice period of the 6 months restriction that the PILA (1) reverses the transfer order. Nothing was initiated, and (2) the transfer allegedly made it difficult for anyone on the CBA's general secretary to make room for anyone. ) The worker's transfer was an employer's case but where the category was changed was wrong but invalid and not without authority (2) the transfer order was submitted for the reasons that the applicant's employer imposed a wrong joint. Which was not his duty and consequently withheld. Due to the factory and this error, the applicant was punished for the post-inquiry inquiry and the alleged relationship of the appointed person at his place. The Secretary-General's CBA did not prove the transfer order under the circumstances, could not be considered as a multi-faceted Labor Court; Through an appellate tribunal, the Labor Court ordered the complaint to be accepted. best law firm from Guddu lawyer