Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1971 PLC 543

ABUL KALAM AZAD vs MESSRS TECHNICAL ENTERPRISES INC.

Citation1971 PLC 543
CourtLabour Court
Case No.Complaint Case No. 401 of 1970
Date1970-09-02
Judge(s)M. A. Sabur, Juned Ahmed Chaudhry, Ms. Nurul Huda
ResultN/A

1. AWARD MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 filed by Abul Kalam Azad who alleges that he was a daily rated worker under the second party Messrs Technical Enterprises Inc. for one year, thereafter he became a monthly rated worker from February 1968, at the rate of Rs. 180'00 per month. The services of the first party were, however, terminated by the second party on 31-3-70. At the time of termination of his services he was getting Rs. 220.00 per month. It is alleged by the petitioner that he being a permanent worker he is entitled to benefits under section 19(1) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. But he was not given full benefits by the second party. So, he has filed this application before the Court for termi--nation benefits as detailed in his application: The learned Advocate appearing for the second party concedes that his client is agreeable to pay up the legal dues of the petitioner and that the petitioner has been paid Rs. 1,222---00.

2. We are not concerned here so much with unpaid salary. The difference between the parties arises with respect to notice pay-whether it should be one month's pay or 3 months pay. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a permanent worker and that no copy of notice of retrenchment was sent to the Chief Inspector as provided under section 12(b) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. That being so, the termination comes under section 19(1) of the Act, and he is entitled to 3 months' pay in lieu of notice under the said section. He had service for two years as monthly rated worker and previ--ously he was a daily rated worker for one year. There was continuity in his service, and as such, the petitioner should get compensation for 42 days, not for 28 days as paid earlier. The petitioner will also get wages for earned leave, if any, due and unpaid salary, if any.

3. The petitioner will accordingly get the following benefits from the second party :-

(1) 3 months` salary in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 220 per month minus the amount already received by the petitioner, if any;

(2) 42 days' wages as compensation, minus the amount received, if any:

(3) Unpaid salary, if any; and

(4) Salary for earned leave, if any due.

4. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the first party petitioner within one month from today.

5. In arriving at the decision I have considered the views of the learned Members.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch