1971 PLP 554 (PLC(CS))
Kazi HARUNUR RASHID Versus MESSRS CONTINENTAL TRADERS, CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 554 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | East Pakistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, Juned Ahmad Chowdhury and M. A. Sabur, |
| Parties | Kazi HARUNUR RASHID Versus MESSRS CONTINENTAL TRADERS, CHITTAGONG |
| Primary Law | East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 554 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 554 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the East Pakistan Labour Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, Juned Ahmad Chowdhury and M. A. Sabur,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 554 (PLC(CS)) (Kazi HARUNUR RASHID Versus MESSRS CONTINENTAL TRADERS, CHITTAGONG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25(1)(6)‑Verbal removal from service‑Employer contending voluntary giving up of service‑Worker's grievance petition not replied and employer not turning up at time of hearing Case, in circumstances, held, that of termination simpliciter and worker entitled to termination benefits.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).‑This case arises out of an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employ ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. Petitioner Kazi Harunur Rashid alleges that he was a Jetty Sarker under the 2nd party Messrs Continental Traders on a monthly salary of Rs.
150. His case is that he was verbally removed from service with effect from 1‑1‑0, but he was not given the termination benefits. ‑The 2nd party filed a written statement wherein it is contended that the petitioner voluntarily gave up service. At the time of hearing the 2nd party did not turn up to contest the claim of the petitioner. So the case has been heard ex parte. Petitioner has deposed in support of his contentions. It appears that the petitioner served under the 2nd party for over one year. The petitioner claims that he was a permanent employee under the 2nd party. Evidence of the petitioner is going unchallenged. On the materials before as we can find that the petitioner's service was verbally terminated as alleged by them. The petitioner submitted grievance petition which was received by the 2nd party on 9‑1‑
70. That it was not replied to there is no dispute. The petitioner has come before Court in time. We hold that the petitioner should get termination benefits. Both the members also advise accordingly. So it is held that the petitioner will get the following benefits from the second party: (1) 90 days' wages in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 150 per month (2) 14 days' wages as compensation, and (3) Wages for earned leave, if any, due. 2nd party do comply within one month from today.