1971PLC27 (PLP)
BAZALAHMED Versus MBSSRS RAHMANIA ELECTRIC STORES, CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971PLC27 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour 'Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman and M. H. Meerza, Member |
| Parties | BAZALAHMED Versus MBSSRS RAHMANIA ELECTRIC STORES, CHITTAGONG |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971PLC27 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971PLC27 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour 'Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman and M. H. Meerza, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971PLC27 (PLP) (BAZALAHMED Versus MBSSRS RAHMANIA ELECTRIC STORES, CHITTAGONG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- It is further submitted by the first party that the second party still has a driver in their establishment. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the first party cited the rulings reported in P L D 1967 Dacca 724.
Headnotes / Summary
East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII- of 1965), S. 25(1)(6) read with S. 12-Retrencnment-Notice of retrenchment not served upon - Inspector-"Last in-first out" principle not adhered to-Case, in circumstances, held, termination simpliciter and not retrenchment-Worker, held, entitled to termination benefits. P L D 1967 Dacca 724 ref.,
Judgment & Decree
The first party could not remember his pay when tie came to the regular establishment. He could not also give the correct date and time when he entered in the employment and regular service; or when his services were taken in the regular establishment in 1954. Naturally, the papers are in the custody of the second party. The second party has not filed any written statement or objection and any document, so as to prove or disprove the claims of the first party. There had been some suggestions by the lawyer for the second party in this connection, but these suggestions are not borne out by documentary evidence. Hence, the position is that Bazal Ahmed claimed his pay as Rs. 205.00 per month. He further stated that there was another driver employed when he was retrenched from the employment of the second party on the ground of redundancy. On the principle of retrenchment "Last in-first out", it was the turn of the other driver who entered in the employment only 4/5 years back and he should have been retrenched. But it appears that the second party did not follow the principle and procedure and hence, this so-called retrenchment cannot be called a retrenchment: It is further submitted by the first party that the second party still has a driver in their establishment. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the first party cited the rulings reported in P L D 1967 Dacca
724. Further it has been alleged and admitted that no retrench ment notice was served upon the Inspector under section 12 of the Standing Orders Act. 1965. The second party did not comply with the provisions of section 25 in giving a reply to the grievance petition of the first party. . For all these reasons, it appears that the second party did no comply with the provisions of Standing Orders 'Act and that according to the law, the so-called retrenchment was a termination simpliciter. Hence, the first party is entitled to get the termination benefits. It is, therefore That the first party do get termination benefits as follows :- (1) 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 205'00 .per month amounting to Rs. 615'00; (2) 14 days' wages as compensation for each completed year of service, or part thereof over six months for 14 years since 1955; and _ (3) Unpaid leave salary, if any. The amount of award should be deposited in Court within 30 days from this date in favour of the first party . The learned Member Mr. M. H. Meerza concurred with me in the above findings.