1971 PLC 121 (PLP)
SIRAJULLAH Versus Messrs YOUSUF & Co., CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLC 121 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, M. A. Sabur and M. H. Meerza, Members |
| Parties | SIRAJULLAH Versus Messrs YOUSUF & Co., CHITTAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLC 121 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLC 121 (PLP)?
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 PLC 121 (PLP) (SIRAJULLAH Versus Messrs YOUSUF & Co., 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(1)(6)‑‑Permanent worker's service terminated Co abruptly‑Worker in circumstances, held, entitled to fell termina tion benefits calculated on basis of monthly pay‑Food supplied guaranties not to be included in pay.
Judgment & Decree
The fact remains that the petitioner was an employee under the second party for about 10 years. His case is that he has been illegally dismissed whereas contention of the 2nd party is that the petitioner willingly resigned and granted a receipt in full and final settlement of his claims. Petitioner Sirajul lah has deposed to say that he was removed from service and that he did not resign or grant any receipt. He has denied his signature on the alleged receipt. The man who has deposed on the side of the 2nd party is not competent to say if the petitioner resigned from service and granted the receipt in question for he was not here at Chittagong at the relevant time, he was then at Karachi. So the statement of the petitioner that he was removed from service and he has not granted the alleged receipt goes unchallenged to say. It is held that the petitioner has been removed from service without observ ing legal formalities. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to termination benefits. It appears that the, pay of the petitioner was Rs. 6, per month. He used to get fooding on gratis and it is not included in his pay. Opinion of the two learned members is also in keeping with my view. It is accordingly, That the case be allowed on contest. 2nd party do pay up the dues of the 1st party as follows: Re. (1) Three months' notice pay, 80.00 (2) Compensation for 140 days 280.00 (3) Twenty days leave pay 40.00 (4) Unpaid wages from 1‑3‑1969 to 11-4-169 82.00 Total amount 582.00 Second party do comply with this order within one month from today.