SALGCMUDDIN CHUNDRIGAR versus SINDH SCCD CORPORATION, HYDCRABAD
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 Respondents for a complaint application were promoted, dismissed, but then their promotion was restored without notice to the applicant worker: Worker prayed that he be Development could also be given, but his representation was rejected and his appeal was rejected. He was also dismissed for refusing to represent him when, due to time restriction, the worker again gave notice of the complaint which was not answered but on the complaint filed by the employees on the request filed by the employer. The reason was contested that both the complaint notice and the application were banned which were filed after a long period of rehabilitation. The co-worker's development work was admittedly unaware of the restoration of co-worker's development, which was due to him when he finally got his representation for the job related to the job. The complaint was rejected by the notice, which was given within 3 months from the date of approval of the cause. Action and complaint request within 2 months of the acknowledgment file d Complaint Notice, thus cannot be considered as time restriction.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
