1971 PLP 312 (PLC)
ABDUL KARIM Versus UNIVERSAL IRON SAFE INDUSTRIES, DACCA
| Citation | 1971 PLP 312 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | East Pakistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and M. Karim, Members |
| Parties | ABDUL KARIM Versus UNIVERSAL IRON SAFE INDUSTRIES, 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 312 (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 312 (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 312 (PLC) (ABDUL KARIM Versus UNIVERSAL IRON SAFE INDUSTRIES, DACCA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 25(l)(b)‑Verbal dismissal without assigning any reason‑Grievance petition not replied‑Employer failing to appear before Court on date of hearing Case decided ex parte and workman directed to be re‑instated with all back wages.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑This, is an application under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party is that lie had been serving under the second party as a Sales Representative on a monthly salary of Rs. 350.00 since January 1969. On 17‑12‑1969 while he went to his usual duty, the proprietor of the Company verbally dismissed him without assigning any reason. During his one year's period of service he had never been charge‑sheeted before and no explanation was called for. He served grievance petition upon the second party with a copy of the Director of Labour. The latter called both the parties fixing 9‑2‑70 for conciliation. But the second party did not turn up. The second party did not give any reply to his grievance notice. Hence this application for directing the second party to re‑instate the first party with all back wages and other benefits. While the hearing was taken the second party was found absent and so the first party was heard ex pane. In this case the second party was duly notified and the second party sent application on 31‑3‑70 and 11‑4‑70 for time. The second party again applied for time on 27‑4‑
70. The second party, however, was present on 20‑5‑70 and 19‑6‑
70. On 22‑8‑70 and 8‑9‑70 which were the final dates of hearing, the second party was found absent. The Members were present. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the case is allowed ex parts and the second party is directed to re‑instate the, first party to his former post with all back wages within thirty days from the date of passing this order. Members on consultation agreed with the decision above.