Find a Lawyer

AMJAD HUSSAIN CHOUDHRY versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 A Wet Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VII 1968), Fresh Inquiry Employees Integrated with Section O15 Jobs, was dismissed from the post of charge, [and [and fraudulent]. Conduct a domestic inquiry against him for misconduct. The Labor Court, for the purpose of temporarily conducting a new inquiry against the employees, affirmed that some of the witnesses presented by the employer were not examined by the employee in the domestic inquiry. During the employee's confession against the employee, he admitted that he had examined some of these witnesses, but had refused to investigate some of the others, even though the inquiry officer had obtained cross-examination of witnesses through the inquiry officer. There was ample compliance with the princess, while giving the employee an opportunity for inspection In these cases and circumstances, the Labor Court was not obliged to direct the inquiry only because employees who examined some employees and refused to examine others at the relevant time would later be able to examine witnesses. Have wanted The employee has been granted more than thirty days as allowed under section O15 (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, 1968, but since the preliminary inquiry the employee admitted his guilt. So, there was no prejudice to the employees as the showcase notice or charge sheet was delayed, especially when it was released after the initial inquiry which employee had information. list of supreme court advocates from Muridkay lawyer