Find a Lawyer

versus

Waste Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section O15 (4) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Section 25 Service The wrongful dismissal of the appellant from the custodian of the stores to the appellant allegedly an optical parameter. Was used by employers. In a routine inquiry against the appellant for the Central Laboratory, the Custodian of the stores stated that he had come to the appellant's knowledge of the management of the theft of the optical parameter one year before issuing the charge sheet, the store's custodian statement Was not challenged by the employer in cross examination. Whether the appellant was questioned orally or in writing did not know the position of the optical pyrometer in explaining its disappearance, the audit team's report on the missing parameter was not presented in evidence. The initial inquiry report was silent on any misconduct by the appellant charge sheet. The time for the appellant was withheld a Within a month under Standing Order No. 15 (4), the required witness was unable to impose responsibility on a particular officer but kept all the officers who were with him. The appellant, responsible, the appellant, could not be held liable for damages for the device in the circumstances, including the department was operating in the store. While the Labor Court was not allowed to appeal the appellant's complaint, the disputed order of dismissal of the services of the appellant was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated regarding employment or unemployment. No evidence was presented. ven fans ask a advocate free from Nowshera lawyer