1971 PLC 85 (PLP)
DHRUBA JIBAN SHAHA Versus THE PROPRIETOR, ELECTRO HOUSE, DACCA
| Citation | 1971 PLC 85 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem, and M. Karim, Members |
| Parties | DHRUBA JIBAN SHAHA Versus THE PROPRIETOR, ELECTRO HOUSE, DACCA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLC 85 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLC 85 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem, and M. Karim, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLC 85 (PLP) (DHRUBA JIBAN SHAHA Versus THE PROPRIETOR, ELECTRO HOUSE, DACCA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 2:)(1)(6)‑ Discharge without assigning any reason‑Grievance petition not replied‑Employer pleading ignorance of legal requirements‑Worker, in circumstances, awarded, re instatement with back wages.
Judgment & Decree
East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 2:)(1)(6)‑ Discharge without assigning any reason‑Grievance petition not replied‑Employer pleading ignorance of legal requirements‑Worker, in circumstances, awarded, re instatement with back wages. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an applica tion under section, 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment‑ of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a salesman under the second party 2 years back at a monthly pay of Rs. 182
00. The second party illegally discharged him on 14‑3‑70 without framing any charge‑sheet. There were some false and fabricated allegations. He sent a grievance petition but it was not replied to. So he prays for directing the second party to re‑instate him to his former post with all brick wages. The second party entered into appearance but did not file any written statement. The second party wanted to say that he has been lawfully discharged. Point for determination in this case is what relief, if any, the first party is entitled to: It appears from the submission of the second party that for lack of knowledge they could not comply with the provisions of law while taking punitive action against the first party. No explanation was taken from him. There was no formal enquiry or framing of charge. Thereafter he was arbitrarily dismissed. The second party did not even comply with the provision of section .25 of the Act as they failed to reply to the grievance petition in time. So it appears that there has been a gross violation of the provisions of law. Hence the prayer of the first patty is allowed on contest and the second party is directed to re‑instate the first party to his former post with all back wages within 30 (thirty) days from this date. Members on consultation agree with my decision, as given above.