ABDUL HANIF versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION
Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Sections 15 and 22A (8) (g) of unfair labor practice by a suspended employee accused of misconduct alleging that he was victimized by his trade union activities Because he was an active member of it. The employees' union in the department was also presented a charge sheet along with the statement of the charges which were answered by the employee and in response the employee did not mention any of the business union activities against him. Due to the action taken against him, the employee himself admitted that he was involved in various criminal cases and of these cases he was granted bail in 16 cases, but the challan of these cases is still authorized by the inquiry officer. Was required to appear in court which showed that the employee was guilty of all misconduct charges. AD was found. Along with his other colleagues, employees also tried to raise the issue of being victimized by their trade at a later stage, accused of union activity and unfair labor practice against the employer. There was an employee who failed to establish an unfair labor lawsuit against the employer, due to allegations of misconduct the legal proceedings initiated against the employer could not be interfered with. If the administration took action against an employee who was declared to be corrupt, it cannot be said that the administration violated Article 15 of the ordinance, because the administration has the right to Take disciplinary action against this worker. corruption
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
