GHULAM HYDER versus INDUS DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD
Sections 46 and 48 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII of 1968), Section O 15 dismissed because of a complaint of mismanagement, the employee who was employed as an assistant at the employer's factory was removed from the job. Was. After examining all the evidence available to him before presenting the notice and alleging that he was the inquiry officer for corruption, he observed that the employee was guilty of corruption and was asked to make recommendations. Had a full and fair chance. The employee was participated in the inquiry process by the Inquiry Officer to participate in the inquiry process and the employee participated in the inquiry process. Throughout the proceedings, the employee did not object to the appointment of an inquiry officer, nor did he accuse him of any misconduct, prejudice and enmity. The employee was given a full and fair opportunity to dismiss the charges contained in the charge sheet, but the Inquiry Officer inquired the officer against presenting all the documents, statements and recommendations of the inquiry against the employer. Failure to present reasonably contradictory statements in the statements of the witnesses listed earlier, in their inquiry report, the court reviewed all the evidence on record regarding allegations of misconduct by employees. There is no material defect in the inquiry made against the employee by the source Came and was rightly rejected the restoration of the order passed by the court employees. , Is subject to any unlawful interference or disorder
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
