1971 PLP 120 (PLC)
MANICK CHANDRA SEAL Versus THE MANAGING PARTNER, FAZLI BROTHERS, CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 120 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members |
| Parties | MANICK CHANDRA SEAL Versus THE MANAGING PARTNER, FAZLI BROTHERS, CHITTAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 120 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 120 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan 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 120 (PLC) (MANICK CHANDRA SEAL Versus THE MANAGING PARTNER, FAZLI BROTHERS, CHITTAGONG). 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), S. 25‑Service less than three months‑Probationer‑ Service of such petitioner terminated without notice‑Grievance petition not replied‑Worker, in circumstances, held, entitled to one month's, notice pay and arrears of pay due to him.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). The petitioner Manik Chandra Seal alleges that he was serving under the 2nd party as an Accountant on a monthly salary of Rs.
250. He served for more than 3 months when on 1‑7‑1969 his service was terminated without any notice. During the period of service lye did not also get. his full, wages. So he has filed the present case under, section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. .2nd party entered appearance, filed petitions for times and filed W. S., but did not ultimately contest the case. According to the statement of the petitioner he was appointed on 26‑3‑1969 and he was discharged on 1‑7‑1969. He did not complete his probationary period. He was, therefore, a temporary hand. Grievance petition was submitted but to no effect. In this case the petitioner is entitled to one month's notice pay. Over and above that he will get leis arrear pays due. No clear case of house‑rent support is made out. So we refuse to include house‑rent in the pay. Members also advise accordingly. The ‑petitioner will thus get as follows from the second party: (a) Notice pay ... Rs. 250 (b) Arrear, pay ... ... Rs. 556 Total Amount ... Rs. 806 Second party do pay up the about amount of Rs. 806 to the petitioner within one month from today.