Find a Lawyer

RUBINA SHAHZADI versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIAC, KARACHI

CL 75 (a) Appellant for service, a female cabin staff dismissed, raised the job of serving as an air hostess for a period of five years and received the necessary training and entered into bond. One of the conditions of the bond was that the appellant would not receive. She will be responsible for the dismissal of the job and the cost of training of Rupees 40,000, except with the permission of the authorities, except for marriage during the term when the appellant informed the authorities that before the expiry of five years, she was a Has entered into a marriage with the person. The first wife of the said person also complained to the PIA Corporation that the appellant had inquired and the inquiry officer had found him guilty of violating the Administrative Order 59 of 1982 and also the appellant of the misconduct. Was fired and was asked to pay the cost of training. In her court appeal, the appellant stated that she had entered into the marriage only and did not marry. The marriage was not performed under the Muhammadan law because it could not deny the wife of a Muhammadan. Because in danger of disobeying the Qur'anic orders, the appellant himself retreated that the fact of entering into the marriage was not violated. The rules / administrative order as well as the restrictions imposed when presenting yourself for training in bonds was an order sanctioned against the appellant, however, maintaining the employment dismissal conviction seemed very stringent and At the same time, he was ordered to suspend the pursuit of justice criminal advocate from Dunyapur lawyer