1970 PLP 800 (PLC)
ABDUS SOBHAN Versus PROPRIETOR, ORIENT PRESS, DACCA
| Citation | 1970 PLP 800 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and |
| Parties | ABDUS SOBHAN Versus PROPRIETOR, ORIENT PRESS, DACCA |
| Primary Law | Industrial dispute |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 800 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial dispute as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 800 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 800 (PLC) (ABDUS SOBHAN Versus PROPRIETOR, ORIENT PRESS, DACCA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑Dismissal without any charge‑sheet and enquiry--‑Employer not replying to grievance petition of dismissed workman and also not appearing before Court‑Application for re‑instatement with full back wages, in circumstances, allowed ex parte‑East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25.
Judgment & Decree
Complaint Case No: 71 of 1970, decided on 14th May 1970. --‑Dismissal without any charge‑sheet and enquiry--‑Employer not replying to grievance petition of dismissed workman and also not appearing before Court‑Application for re‑instatement with full back wages, in circumstances, allowed ex parte‑East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S.
25. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN): This is an applica tion under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter mentioned as the Act. The case of the first party was that he was a Compositor under the second party since 5‑5‑1965 at a monthly pay of Rs. 120.00. All Press workers of Dacca observed 27 days' strike with effect from 21‑I 1‑69 to 18‑12‑69 for fulfilment of their point charter of demands. This strike was sponsored by the Dacca Press Karmachari Union. The first party was an active member of the said Union. The first party however worked up to 26‑11‑69 and then he participated in the strike. Oh 27‑I1‑69 the second party issued a show‑cause notice against the first party. He submitted an explanation. On 26‑12‑69 the first party was dismissed. He received a dismissal order on 26‑1‑
70. He sent a grievance petition but he was not given any reply. Hence this application. The second party did not file any written statement nor entered appearance. So the matter was heard ex parte. It appears from the papers submitted by the first party that he was dismissed from his service by the second party on some charges. There was no formal enquiry. The second party did not reply to the grievance petition nor gave any hearing and thus they have violated the legal provisions. In view of this the claim of the first party appears to have been proved. The first party has prayed for re‑instatement to his post with full back wages. The application is therefore allowed ex parte and it is awarded that the first party be re‑instated to his former post with all back wages by the 'second party within 30 days from the date of passing this order. Members on consultation agree with ray above decision.