1971 PLP 352 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ALI Versus SAFAR UDDIN
| Citation | 1971 PLP 352 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | East Pakistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, M. Karim and S. A. Haleem, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI Versus SAFAR UDDIN |
| Primary Law | East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 352 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 352 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the East Pakistan Labour Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, M. Karim and S. A. Haleem, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 352 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ALI Versus SAFAR UDDIN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25 (1)(b)‑Abrupt termination of service without any reason‑Grievance petition not replied‑Employer not appearing before Court‑Case decided ex parte and workman, in circumstances, held, entitled to full termination benefits.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an appli cation under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party is that he was a table‑boy‑cum -cook at a monthly pay of Rs. 75.00 since 1967. His services were abruptly terminated without any notice and without any legal dues by the owner Safar Uddin on 1‑10‑1969 without payment of the legal dues or notice, etc. The owner refused to show any reason and did not reply to the grievance petition copy of which was sent to different authorities. The second party did not turn up today and he was found absent on repeated call. Members are present. They gave opinion for termination benefits. The worker was examined who has established his claim by corroborating his claim as in the plaint. It appears that he is entitled to get termination benefit under the law. Therefore, this case is decided ex parte and the second party is directed to pay the first party termination benefits as per law. The amount shall be calculated acid deposited in Court by the second party to the credit of the first party within thirty days from today. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above and submitted written opinion accordingly.