1970 PLP 839 (PLC)
NURUL ISLAM Versus MESSRS NATIONAL METAL WORKS, DACCA
| Citation | 1970 PLP 839 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman and M. Karim, Member |
| Parties | NURUL ISLAM Versus MESSRS NATIONAL METAL WORKS, DACCA |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 839 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 839 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman and M. Karim, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 839 (PLC) (NURUL ISLAM Versus MESSRS NATIONAL METAL WORKS, DACCA). 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 (3) 25,1)(b)‑Temporary workers service terminated without notice etc.‑Entitled to relief under Act‑14 days' "ages under S. l9(i), In circumstances, awarded.
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, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party is that he was appointed in the month of May, 1969 at a daily wage of. Rs.400. His services were verbally terminated on 27‑8‑
69. He scat a grievance petition, but he received no reply. Hence the present application praying for re‑instatement with back wages. The second party entered into appearance through their representative who verbally submitted that the first party was appointed on 26th May 1969 and was discharged on 11‑8‑
69. His daily wage was Rs. 2.50. He was not a permanent worker, as he did not complete even 3 months' service. Point for determination in the present case is what relief, if any, the , first party is entitled to under the provisions of law? It appears from the evidence and circumstances of the case that both the appointment and discharge were verbal. The first party cannot produce any appointment letter or letter of discharge. It is admitted that there was no formal appointment letter. The first party cannot mention the date of his appointment whereas the second party shows by production of a muster‑roll that the first party started receiving wages from 26th May 1969. He also produced another receipt to show that the first party received his last wage on 11‑8‑
69. As against this no documentary evidence could be produced from the side of the worker. The worker himself was present in Court. His version could be found in the complaint. No other witness was produced by him. It appears that the firs party was not a permanent worker, as he did not complete three months' service. But he is a temporary worker for the purpose of this Act and therefore, he can claim relief under section 19 (3) of the Act. It appears that the second party did not comply with the provisions of the Act. So‑ the tirst party is entitled to receive 14 days' wages as notice pay The second party has agreed ‑ to give him the difference of the wages between Rs. 2‑50 paisa and Rs. 4 81 paisa which was the minimum wage fixed for a daily‑rated worker with effect from 1‑7‑69 from which date the Minimum Wages Ordinance came into force. Hence it is ordered that the application is allowed in part on contest. The first party is entitled to get 14 days' wages as notice pay at the rate of Rs. 4'81 per day and balance wages for 37 days at the rate of Rs. 2'31 paisa being the difference of wages between Rs. 4'81 and Rs. 2
50. The second party is directed to deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days, from the date of this order. Members on consultation expressed their, opinion agreeing with my decision above.