1971 PLP 119 (PLC)
MD. ABDUL GANI MOLLAH Versus MESSRS NEW ERA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD., CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 119 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | F. I. M. Nurul Abedin, Chairman, M: A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, |
| Parties | MD. ABDUL GANI MOLLAH Versus MESSRS NEW ERA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD., CHITTAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 119 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 119 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: F. I. M. Nurul Abedin, Chairman, M: A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 119 (PLC) (MD. ABDUL GANI MOLLAH Versus MESSRS NEW ERA METAL INDUSTRIES LTD., CHITTAGONG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
East Pakistan ‑'Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (y1ll of 1965), S 25(1)(6)‑Dismissal on account of misconduct‑Worker given adequate defence opportunity and chance to cross examine witness in enquiry ‑Worker, 1 enquiry‑Worker, in circumstances, held, not entitled to any relief.
Judgment & Decree
F. I. M. NURUL ABEDIN (CHAIRMAN). This i8 an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. The case of the first party is that he was an employee under the second party for the last 14 years. That on 28‑7‑1969 he was charge‑sheeted for misconduct. The first party replied to the charge. There was a show of enquiry. The first party was not given any opportunity to defend himself and on 25‑8‑1969 he was illegally dismissed by the second party. The first party sent his grievance petition, but to no effect. Hence, he has come to this Court for proper relief: The case of the second party is that the first party assaulted Bimal Barua and Siddique Ahmed within the factory premises and after that he began to absent without any leave or authority, after the incident. So, a charge‑sheet was drawn up against him for riotous and disorderly behaviour and absence from duty for more than 10 days without leave. The first party showed cause and an enquiry was held and all the opportunities were afforded to him, not only that the defence witnesses were also examined by the Enquiry Officer at the prayer of the first party. The first party found him guilty in the enquiry and he was accordingly dismissed, and as such, he was not entitled to get any relief. Heard both sides and perused the papers submitted by the parties. I find that the first party was given adequate opportunities to defend himself. He was also given chance to cross‑examine the witnesses by the Enquiry Officer. S0, the first party cannot get any relief here. The learned, members agree with me in the above view. ORDERED ` That the case be and is dismissed on contest,