1971PLC232 (PLP)
ABDUR RAHMAN Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, NORTH BENGAL SUGAR MILLS Co. LTD. (EPIDC),
| Citation | 1971PLC232 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUR RAHMAN Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, NORTH BENGAL SUGAR MILLS Co. LTD. (EPIDC), |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971PLC232 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971PLC232 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971PLC232 (PLP) (ABDUR RAHMAN Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, NORTH BENGAL SUGAR MILLS Co. LTD. (EPIDC),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Easy Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965), S. 25(1)(b) - Dismissal for misconduct‑Workman charged of insubordination and indiscipline amounting to misconduct due to refusal to perform genuine work ‑ Findings of proper domestic enquiry proving charge‑Ire‑instatement, in circumstances, refused but on compassionate ground order of dismissal altered to that of discharge without any claim for compensation, or allowance of any sort. A et seq
Judgment & Decree
Fact of the case is that the petitioner‑complainant Abdur Rahman was Clerk ire the Senior Grade under the 2nd party North Bengal Sugar mills Co. Ltd. He was posted as plead office at Gopalpur and was residing with family in the Mills' quarter. On 24‑2‑1970 he was transferred to Krishna Farm about 9 miles away. Leaving the family and children at Gopalpur he joined Krishna Fern, on 25‑2‑1970 and sent a representation for permission to attend his family tit Gopalpur every day. He got no such precision but he was leaving the Station at his will with information to Farm Superintendent. On 8‑61970 Store Clerk of the Farm Mr. Anil Kummar Sarkar was going on leave for one month. The petitioner was directed to take charge from him but the petitioner did not take charge on this plea or that. But all his pleas were rejected. Still when he pleaded inability to take charge by letter dated 18‑6‑1970 he was, by order of the Administrator