1971 PLP 536 (PLC(CS))
ALI AHMED MOLLA Versus MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI LTD, CHITTAGONG
| Citation | 1971 PLP 536 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | East Pakistan Labour Court |
| Bench Members | Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, Juned Ahmad Chowdhury and M. A. Sabur, Members |
| Parties | ALI AHMED MOLLA Versus MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI LTD, CHITTAGONG |
| 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 536 (PLC(CS))?
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 536 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the East Pakistan Labour Court bench comprising: Md. Nurul Huda, Chairman, Juned Ahmad Chowdhury and M. A. Sabur, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 536 (PLC(CS)) (ALI AHMED MOLLA Versus MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI LTD, CHITTAGONG). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25 (1) (b)‑Limitation‑Worker involved in criminal case on account of misappropriation of emoloyer's funds and dismissed during pendency of criminal case‑Worker long after termination of criminal case and 3 years after actual dismissal submitting grievance petition and then filing complaint before Labour Court for payment of termination benefits ‑Worker aware of dismissal and no suggestion of fraudulent suppression of dismissal order-- Complaint, in circumstances, held, barred by limitation Pendency of criminal case‑Does not save limitation.
Judgment & Decree
MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).‑The petitioner All Ahmed was a salesman under the 2nd party M. M. Ispahani Ltd. and a criminal case was started against the petitioner for misappropriation of Company's fund. During the pendency of the criminal case he was dismissed from service on 16‑1‑
66. On 29‑1‑66 the petitioner challenged the validity of the order of dismissal. Then long after the termination of the criminal case this case has been filed on 8‑4‑69 for certain amounts as termination benefits. 2nd party while denying the material allegation of the 'petitioner contend, inter alia, that the application of the petitioner is barred by limitation. Both the members of the Court hold that the application is barred by limitation. I also agree with them. It is clear from petitioner's case that he was aware of the dismissal order and he challenged the same at the earliest opportunity. He should have submitted grievance petition as provided and should have come before Court within the time specified in. clause (b) of section 25(1) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. But he waited and filed grievance petition on 29‑1‑69, long years after and files this case on 8‑4‑
69. There is no ground in this case to save limitation. There is no fraudulent suppression of the order of dismissal. Criminal case does not also salve limitation. Hence, That the application is barred by limitation.