1971 PLP 349 (PLC)
S. A. HAMID Versus MESSRS BLUE TRADING Co. LTD., DACCA
| Citation | 1971 PLP 349 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | East Pakistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and M. Karim, Members |
| Parties | S. A. HAMID Versus MESSRS BLUE TRADING Co. LTD., DACCA |
| 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 349 (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 349 (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 349 (PLC) (S. A. HAMID Versus MESSRS BLUE TRADING Co. LTD., DACCA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25(1)(b)‑Termination due to worsening financial condition of employer‑Workman, held, entitled to full termination benefits.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is Ian applica tion under section 25(1)(b) 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 was that he was a permanent machine attendant under the second party with effect from 20‑12‑1967 at a monthly wage of Rs. 90.00. When he demanded his pay for the month of August 1969, it was not paid to him and the second party became angry with the first party. His pay for the month of January 1970, also was due. Then without giving him the termination benefits his services were terminated with effect from 31‑1‑1970 by a letter dated 28‑1‑1970. He sent a grievance petition on 10‑2‑1970. But the second party did not receive the same and refused the same on 13‑2‑1970. So he filed this case for full termination benefits as per law. The second party remained absent on the last 3 occasions though they filed written objection earlier. It was stated in the written objection that the first party was a purely temporary hand and as the financial condition of the second party worsen, the company could not afford to retain his services: On seeing this condition the first party wanted to leave the organisation and as such, his services were terminated with his full consent. But owing to the shortage of fund the first party could not be paid his dues. So it appears that the second party admitted the claim of the first party. As such, it is a case of termination simpliciter. So the First party is entitled to full termination benefits as follows :‑‑ (1) Notice pay for 90 days at the rate of Rs. 90 per month. (2) Compensation for 2 years at the rate of 14, days' wages for every year. (3) Unavailed of annual leave salary for 20 days. (4) Unpaid arrear wages for August 1969 and January 1970. (5) Any other legal dues. The second party is directed to calculate and deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of this order. The opinion of the Members has been taken into consideration at the time of arriving at this decision.