1970 PLP 789 (PLC)
ISHAQ AHMED Versus THE MANAGER, DELTA JUTE MILLS LTD., NOAKHALI
| Citation | 1970 PLP 789 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem |
| Parties | ISHAQ AHMED Versus THE MANAGER, DELTA JUTE MILLS LTD., NOAKHALI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 789 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 789 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 789 (PLC) (ISHAQ AHMED Versus THE MANAGER, DELTA JUTE MILLS LTD., NOAKHALI). 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. 25(1)(b)‑Permanent worker‑--charge‑sheeted by employer‑Charge‑sheet replied to but neither any enquiry held nor opportunity of personal hearing given‑Grievance petition not replied to‑Employer not appearing before Court‑Dismissal, in circumstances, set aside and re‑instatement with full back wages awarded ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter called as the Act, by Md. Ishaq Ahmed, the first party with a prayer for re‑instatement to his former employment. The case of the first party was that he was a permanent worker of the second party as Office Assistant since 2‑1‑1967. The second party drew up charge‑sheet on the first party on 28‑11‑1969 which was false and fictitious. He received the same and replied to the charges on 9‑12‑1969. His request for personal hearing was rejected. He was suspended. There was no enquiry. Thereafter he was dismissed from service on 14‑12‑1969. He preferred a grievance petition on 14‑12‑1969 but it was not replied to by the second party. Hence this application. The second party did not turn up today for hearing, Hence it is heard ex parte. The first party has produced certain papers with regard to his services, etc. His contention has been proved and so his prayer is granted. Hence this application is allowed ex parte and it is awarded that the second party should re‑instate the first party to his former post with all back wages within 30 days from the date of passing this order. Members on consultation have expressed their opinion in favour of re‑instatement of the first party with back wages.