Find a Lawyer

DISTRICT MANAGER versus MUHAMMAD SAEED

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 A domestic inquiry was dismissed as a result of a domestic inquiry into misappropriation of money, which he allegedly issued without a ticket from his bus passengers. Received from travelers. Weighing with the Labor Court to allow the respondents' complaint to be filed weighed in on the fact that no fewer passengers were examined by the corporation in front of the Inquiry Officer or the Labor Court TT40, which was exhibited, This shows that the defendant was confronted by the passengers. The TTBour had expressed the defendant's signatures, but in his unanimous examination, the respondents denied the facts of the encounter with the passengers. Did not accept the statement and alleged that its signatures were forcibly taken on TT40 The respondents' cash bag revealed this Not checked to see if the amount in question is high? In TT 40, the mere statement that the defendant had no proof of the passenger less than the ticket was not sufficient proof that the less than ticket non-passenger had made a complaint against the employer in the case of the passenger without issuing the ticket on the conductor. The charge to collect the fare was dismissed in the absence of evidence of such passengers as the dismissal order was not upheld The charge against the respondent Labor Court was proved, the defendant is allowed to retain the employee's complaint request. immigration advocates phone number from Mailsi lawyer