1971 PLP 122 (PLC)
A. Z. SIRAJ Versus THE, CHIEF ENGINEER, IVAN MILUTIONOVIC‑PIM, CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 122 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | A. Z. SIRAJ Versus THE, CHIEF ENGINEER, IVAN MILUTIONOVIC‑PIM, CHITTAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 122 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 122 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 122 (PLC) (A. Z. SIRAJ Versus THE, CHIEF ENGINEER, IVAN MILUTIONOVIC‑PIM, CHITTAGONG). 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), Ss. 19(1) & 25 ‑ Permanent worker's service terminated allegedly on account of misconduct‑‑Nature of enquiry held not disclosed in Court‑Notice required under S. 19(1) not given‑Worker in circumstances, held, entitled to notice pay and other termination benefits.
Judgment & Decree
Both the Members have advised for giving full termination benefits to the petitioner. Both the parties have filed some papers. The appointment letter of the petitioner shows that he was appointed as a probationer and his probationary period was for 3 months. So, on the expiry of his probationary period the petitioner came to the permanent category. Certain papers filed by the second party show that the petitioner was charged for some acts of indiscipline. There was an enquiry Board. What sort of enquiry was held is not known to us. The Board, however, found the petitioner guilty of in disciplinary habit and disobedience to the orders and instructions of the superiors. The letter by which the services of the petitioner was dispensed with shows that the administration decided to discharge the petitioner for major misconduct. The operative portion of the letter shows that the services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 28‑1‑1970. This letter 'is dated 23‑1‑1970. It is at the option of the employer to terminate the services of an employee, even finding a workman guilty of misconduct. In the instant case there is the termination of the services of the petitioner. That being so, the peti tioner is entitled to claim termination benefits: Admittedly A there was no notice of termination of the services of the petitioner. He is entitled to notice pay and other benefits per missible by law. Let me note that the enquiry as, conducted has not fully met the ends of justice and even if on the said enquiry, the petitioner had been dismissed that dismissal would not stand the legal scrutiny. Anyway, in this case I am inclined to allow the termination benefits to the petitioner. It is accordingly, That the case be allowed on contest. The petitioner does get the following benefits from the second party. Rs: (1) 3 months' notice pay 1,200,00. (2) Compensation for 14 days 186.00. (3) Unpaid earned leave wages, if any, due. The second party do pay up the above amounts indicated to the first party petitioner within 15 days from the date of this order.