Find a Lawyer

SHERWALI SHAH PESHAWAR versus GENERAL MANAGER, GOVERNMENT\' TRANSPORT SERVICE, PESHAWAR

Employees in the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, under Article 15A (8) (g) of the Industrial Relations Commission, who were nearing retirement, filed a notice of retirement under the Industrial Relations Commission under section 22A (8). Was challenged by doing. (G) the ordinance alleges that he was punished by the employer for his trade union activities and unfair labor practice was done by the employer, the dispute was terminated because the employees had no jurisdiction. Failure to establish a case of unfair labor practice failed. In order to intervene in the matter, the Commission's employees are required to comply with the notice of termination of employment on the basis of retirement. Caller was restricted to matters. In the case of a victim for any reason other than the activities of this ordinance and nothing beyond it, the Commission shall have no jurisdictional employee who alleged that he was subjected to trade union activities. That is, it failed to provide details of the activities in which the employer was offered a ground to move and employees were given notice of retirement when there was no supporting material. The first evidence, this notice was presented by the victim, no matter of unfair labor was brought against the employer, the existence of unfair labor, for prosecution under section 22A (8) (g). Was already mandatory. Ordinance Since the Ordinance of Retirement Notice to Employees law websites from Kharian lawyer