1971 PLP 290 (PLC)
IMAN ALI Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGAL ELECTRIC ENGINEERING LTD.,
| Citation | 1971 PLP 290 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | East Pakistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and M. Karim, Members |
| Parties | IMAN ALI Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGAL ELECTRIC ENGINEERING LTD., |
| 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 290 (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 290 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the East Pakistan Labour Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and M. Karim, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 290 (PLC) (IMAN ALI Versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGAL ELECTRIC ENGINEERING LTD.,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25(1)(6)‑‑Termination of service of worker before completion of 3 months' service‑Termination within probationary period‑Workman, in circumstances, held, cannot claim any benefit.
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 called as the Act. The case of the first party was that he was appointed on 15‑4-1969 at a monthly salary of Rs. 200.00. But after com pletion of 3 months service he yeas given neither the appointment letter, nor allowed to work further. He sent a grievance petition on 21‑7-1969 and filed this case in the Court on 20‑9‑1969. This other party vehimently objects this allegation of the firs early and submits that he did not complete his probationary period and worked for 2 months and 23 days only and as his services were not found satisfactory, his services were dispensed with. He cannot claim any benefit under the Act. It appears that the case was first received in another Court on 20‑9‑1969, and in thin Court it was received on 14‑11‑1969. The parties were heard in presence of the members. The first party said that he completed 3 months' service and became permanent whereas the second party contested this ‑claim and submitted that the first party served for 2 months and 23 days only. His services were dispensed with as it was found un satisfactory. It appears that in the plaint itself the petitioner just stated that he just completed 3 months' service. If the second party has deliberately dispensed with his service before he wars made permanent that must have been done before his completion of probationary period, as this was done with deliberate intention. In view of this circumstance, we are proned to believe that he did not complete 3 months' probationary period so that be could claim permanency, In view of this irrebutable presumption led!' by circumstances, we find that the services of the first party were terminated during his probationary period and as such he cannot claim any benefit under the Act. The application of the first party is accordingly dismissed on contest, but without costs. Members on consultation agree with my decision as given above.