1971 PLP 86 (PLC)
MOZAMMEL HAQUE Versus MESSRS AEG ENGINEERING PAKISTAN LTD., DACCA
| Citation | 1971 PLP 86 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and M. Karim, Members |
| Parties | MOZAMMEL HAQUE Versus MESSRS AEG ENGINEERING PAKISTAN LTD., DACCA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 86 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 86 (PLC)?
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 PLP 86 (PLC) (MOZAMMEL HAQUE Versus MESSRS AEG ENGINEERING PAKISTAN LTD., DACCA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VI11 of 1965), S. 25(1)(6)‑Permanent worker dismissed verbally Grievance petition not replied to ‑‑ Worker, in circumstances, awarded reinstatement with back wages.
Judgment & Decree
Complaint Case No. 329 of 1969, decided on 4th July 1970. East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VI11 of 1965), S. 25(1)(6)‑Permanent worker dismissed verbally Grievance petition not replied to ‑‑ Worker, in circumstances, awarded reinstatement 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 a permanent worker under the second party for the last 3 years drawing a last pay of Rs. 150'00 per month. He was working at Joydebpur Site till 1‑9‑69 when he was called to the Head Office of the second party. After the payment of wages that afternoon the Manager of the second party told him that as there was no sufficient work he should come after a fortnight and during this period he would be paid wages as per rules that is, 50 % of his wages as lay off benefit. But when he requested the Manager to give him a notice in writing he was told that no notice was necessary as his words were as good as a notice. After the expiry of the said period when be reported for duty, the Manager asked him to come after 2/3 days, but he was not given work after 2 days. He was again told to come on the next day. So he vent, but to no effect. He was not given any work. On 23rd September 1969, he was informed that he was dismissed. He sent a grievance petition on 24‑9‑
69. But he received no reply. Hence this petition praying for re‑instatement to his former post with full back wages. The second party was found absent on repeated calls. It appears on hearing the first party that his case has been well established. It is therefore, ordered that the first party be re‑instated to ht former post with all back wages by the second party within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing this order. Members on consultation agree with my above decision.