1971 PLP 115 (PLC)
MAFIZUR RAHMAN Versus MESSRS J. J. REHBACH (PAK.) LTD., CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 115 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members |
| Parties | MAFIZUR RAHMAN Versus MESSRS J. J. REHBACH (PAK.) LTD., CHITTAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 115 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 115 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 115 (PLC) (MAFIZUR RAHMAN Versus MESSRS J. J. REHBACH (PAK.) LTD., CHITTAGONG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- The petitioner has prayed re‑instatement. In agreement the learned Advocate for the' petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is agreeable to accept termination benefits. Order for re‑instatement is discretionary with the Court. Both the Member C have suggested for giving the petitioner full termination benefits. Instead of thrusting the petitioner on the 2nd party, I am inclined to give termination benefits to the petitioner:
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial dispute‑Misconduct‑Negligence of duty unless habitual‑Not misconduct. (b) East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25‑Dismissal on account of misconduct Workers neither afforded full 3 days' titre for explanation nor proper enquiry held‑Violation of principles of natural justice‑Dismissal, in circumstances, held, invalid and improper ‑ Re‑instatement, however, not granted‑Worker, held, entitled to full termination benefits instead of thrusting him on unwilling employer.
Judgment & Decree
Second party contests the case by filing written objection wherein the allegations of the petitioner are mainly denied and it is contended by the 2nd party that locks of some doors of the office of the 2nd party were broken during duty hours of the petitioner and some properties were missing. The petitioner was rightly charge‑sheeted and he has been legally dismissed from service. The point for our consideration is whether the dismissal of the petitioner is valid and proper and if not, what relief of petitioner is entitled to? The charge‑sheet against the petitioner shows that during his duty hours door locks of some office rooms were found broken and that properties were missing and the petitioner has been charged for misconduct and negligence of duty. Negligent of duty is no misconduct, but habitual negligence of duty comes within the definition of misconduct. The petitioner had not been given full 3 days' time for explanation. On the there hand has been asked to submit explanation within 3 days. This militates against the mandatory provision of law. Admittedly there was no proper enquiry on the charge‑sheet and no enquiry report has been submitted by the second party. The allegation of non‑availability of the address of the petitioner cannot believe. Any way as no enquiry was there worth the name, end of natural justice have no met in his case. The dismissal of the petitioner in these circumstances is invalid and improper. The petitioner has prayed re‑instatement. In agreement the learned Advocate for the' petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is agreeable to accept termination benefits. Order for re‑instatement is discretionary with the Court. Both the Member C have suggested for giving the petitioner full termination benefits. Instead of thrusting the petitioner on the 2nd party, I am inclined to give termination benefits to the petitioner: The petitioner do ‑ get termination benefits from the 2nd party as follows: (1) 3 months' pay in lieu of notice: (2) Wages for 98 days as compensation; (3) Salary for earned leave, if any, due; ('4) Full wages for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance, if paid; and (5) Back wages up to this day. The second party do pay the amounts indicated above within 30 days from today to the 1st party petitioner.