1971PLC34 (PLP)
AHMED H. SPED Versus MANAGER, PARSONS CORPORATION, CHITTAGONG.
| Citation | 1971PLC34 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Court East Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman and M. H. M eerza, Member |
| Parties | AHMED H. SPED Versus MANAGER, PARSONS CORPORATION, CHITTAGONG. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971PLC34 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971PLC34 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Court East Pakistan bench comprising: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman and M. H. M eerza, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971PLC34 (PLP) (AHMED H. SPED Versus MANAGER, PARSONS CORPORATION, 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), Ss. 3(1), 19 & 25(1)(8) -Permanent worker -Termination allegedly according to rules of employer firm-Charge. sheet replied 5y worker but no enquiry held - No subsistence allowances given during suspension - Grievance petition rejected without opportunity of personal hearing-Termination, in circum stances, being violative of provisions of Act, held, illegal-Employer not willing to take worker back in service-Worker, in circum stances, awarded termination benefits under S. 19.
Judgment & Decree
The second party filed written statement and in the written statement it has been stated inter alia that this Act does not apply either to the first party or upon the second party, as the first party is not a "worker" and the second party is not s "Commercial Establishment" and the second party has got its own service rules and the first party had been accordingly dismissed ~ under their own rules. None has appeared for the second party. P. W. 1, Ahmed H., Syed has been examined.. There is none to cross-examine him. It appears that the second party is a commercial establishment under the provisions of the Act and that the first party was also a worker under the second party according to the provisions of the Act. It further appears that according to the proviso to subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, the service rules of the second party could not be inferior to the provisions of the Act. But it appears that so many legal provisions as laid down in sections 18 and 22 of the Act were not complied with by the second party, though they were mandatory. So, it appears that the service rules of the second party are not binding upon the first party. The law of the land should prevail, and there cannot be any disadvantage to the first party. In view of the above findings, it is found that the second party did not comply with the, provisions of the Act. Hence, this so-called termination or dismissal was illegal. As the demeanour of the second party shows that he is not in the mood to behave better with the first party, we want to give only termination benefits to the first party as per provisions of law. Hence, the case is allowed ex pane with cost of Rs. 10.00 as lawyer's fee. The first party would get the following termina tion benefits: (1) 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 500-00 per month amounting to Rs. 1,500'00; (2) Compensation for 14 days; (3) Unpaid salary, if any; and (4) Unpaid leave salary, if any. The second party is directed to deposit the amount in this Court within 30 days from today. The learned Member Mr. M. H. Meerza agreed with me in the above findings.