Find a Lawyer

DILSHAD MUHAMMAD versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION

Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act 1956 Section 10 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Rules, 1985, Removal of 85 and 88 Employees from Employment Appeal of the Lab Appellate Tribunal for Recruitment of Appellant, Respondent P.I. Senior technician at A Corporation challenged his dismissal. The job affected his service on the evidence of the corporation's allegations of his involvement in gold smuggling because his chairman approved the removal order under Reglan 88, therefore, against the order in view of the supply. No appeal or review can be filed. Under Regulation 89 and Section 10 (3) of the PIA Corporation Act 1956, there could not be a retirement or removal order under Regulin 88, but it was considered a penalty and Reglin 85 was subject to the order imposed by the competent authority. Gave the employee the right to appeal or review. By amending Ordinance, in view of the addition of sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 10 of the Act, any penalty shall be served on the study of section 10 (3) of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Appeals may be filed in the present case of 1984 of without any effect other than the Tribunal, without affecting the appeal and even after 5 2 1985 when the Labor Court has jurisdiction. When reinstated, the Labor Court had jurisdiction to file an appeal, but the grievance request was withheld over a period of time and dismissed the grievance request without notice. Or was law websites from Kalam lawyer