SARDAR AURANGZEB versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED
Section 20 (13), 33 and 49 (4) (e) Collective bargaining by the employer against the application for retention under section 49 (4) (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 Can be filed under Agent Agent. Sections 20 (13) and 33 of the Ordinance, while the applicant, who was a permanent employee of the Establishment and Trade Unionist, said that in his personal capacity the applicant moved such an application under section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002. Can Labor Court, but not before the National Industrial Relations Commission, which had jurisdiction if the elements of unfair labor were defined in the application filed in Sections & 63 and 64 of the Ordinance, but by employers as such Had no unfair practice. The petition states that the applicant's lawyer during his argument admitted that there was no discrimination regarding salaries and other terms and conditions as the transfer was done by other transfer employees, such as for the applicant. The applicant's lawyer admitted that there was no discrimination in the terms and conditions of the applicant by the employers and no specific allegation of unfair labor was made. The petition, the petition filed by the petitioner, was not maintainable in the circumstances
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
