HAMID AHMAD KHAN versus PRESIDING OFFICER, FOURTH SINDH LABOUR COURT
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25A West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Termination of Section O12 (3) Job on which the Appellant, Employee Employee, was temporary and possessed No evidence was available. Show that after the appellant's service was terminated, the work that was being done by him was done by someone else or someone else was employed at his place. The employer's request was that the appellant had already received his due in full and a final settlement. And he was prevented from applying for his complaint, the acceptance of wages for the period during which he was entitled, could not prevent him from being challenged before a competent court or tribunal, even a temporary one. The employee could not have been removed from the order except in writing of an order giving clear reasons for his dismissal, the order to terminate the services of the appellant was set aside and he was reinstated. Full back benefits
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
