Find a Lawyer

ABDUL HANIF versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION

The Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 15 and 22A (8) (yes, unfair practice against employees of employees against whom some of the allegations were prosecuted) claimed that he was targeted because of his trade union activities. Was made and the employer suffered from doing so. A charge sheet of unfair exercise was presented to the employee with a statement of allegations against him and he was responding to the charge sheet, but in no way did it allege that the charge was against him. The action was taken due to the activities of the trade union. Employees were also responding to the notices filed, but they also did not allege that they were being prosecuted because of trade union activities, the employee himself admitted that he was involved in various criminal cases. Was one of those criminal cases. In some cases bail was obtained, but the challan of these cases was still pending before the competent judicial inquiry officer. The report shows that the employee was found guilty of all the misconduct allegations made to him, that the employees, in the circumstances, failed to establish a case of unfair wage by the employer, so that sections 15 and 22 mean I was able to grant the court jurisdiction. A (8) (g) of the Ordinance Employer had the right to take disciplinary action against an employee who was found guilty of misconduct. jobs for advocates from Darya Khan lawyer