Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1970 PLC 808

ABDUL MANNA N vs S. M. MOMINUL ISLAM

Citation1970 PLC 808
CourtLabour Court
Case No.Complaint Case No. 60 of 1970
Date1970-05-07
Judge(s)S. A. Haleem, Muhammad Karim, Nurul Islam Khan
ResultN/A

ORDER

1. MD.NURUL ISLAM. KHAN (CHAIRMAN),---This is an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 herein--after mentioned as -the Act, made by Abdul Mannan, Ex-Welder of Geowasim, Ltd. and Associates for termination benefits as admissible under section 19 of the Act.

2. The first party is present in the Court. Members are present. But the second party is absent from the Court. No written statement has been filed. It appears that the second party is aware of the application and they also sent their representation.

3. The case of the first party was that he was employed under the second party with effect from 10-3- 69 as a welder at a monthly pay of Rs. 240.00. That on 2-1-70 while working at Rangpur, the Foreman of the Company obtained the signature of the applicant on a blank sheet of paper without date ors a plea of transferring the first party from Rangpur to some other site and on the same day the Accountant Mr. Moslem--uddin who was at Rangpur, handed over the notice of the termination of the first party's services on the same paper inserting the date of issue as 1-12-69. The first party immediately protested against such an illegal action and requested for Withdrawal of the said notice. But the second party did not consider it. No legal formalities were observed. The first is party submitted a grievance application on 6th January 1970, but no reply was received by him. Hence this application in Court.

4. As the matter was not contested by the second party on the plea that S. M. Mominul Islam was at Rangpur and that the complaint should be sent to him there. It appears from the papers submitted by the first party that S. M. Mominul Islam for and on behalf of Geowasim, Ltd. and Associates issued the retrenchment letter on the ground that due to paucity of work his services were no longer required by the Company and he was retrenched with effect from 1-1-70.

5. Now the submission of the first party was that many welders junior to him were retained in service and as such there was no necessity for any retrenchment of the first party from the service of the second party, and that this so-called retrenchment bf the first party from the services of the second party is actually a termination order. It appears from the submission of the first party that there was no necessity for retrenchment and that very fraudulently his- signature was obtained in a blank sheet of paper in which the order was passed. In fact, this was a notice of termination of the services of the first party. The circumstances and the -mala fide intention of the second party is quite clear from .the absence of the second party. It has been submitted that the office of Geowasim Ltd. & Associates is situated at Motijheel Commercial Area, Dacca and that though- the impugned order was passed under the signature of S. M. Mominul Islam, it was actually passed for and on behalf of Geowasim Ltd. & Associates who should 't contest the case. Therefore, it appears that the first party is a permanent worker and he could get all the benefits under section 19 (1) of the Act.

6. The application is, therefore, allowed ex parte and an award in favour of the first party is passed in the following terms--

(1) The first party should be given 90 days notice pay in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 240.00 per moth.

(2) Compensation for 14 days at the rate of, Rs:240.00 per month.

(3) Unpaid salaries, if any, to be reported by the second party M/s. Geowasim, Ltd. & Associates.

(4) Other legal dues, if any, to be reported by the second party.

7. The second party in this Base is M/s. Geowasim; Ltd. & Associates, 51, Motijheel Commercial Area, Dacca; without shall deposit the amount in Court in favour of the first party within 30 days from the date of passing this order.

8. Both the members, on consultation expressed their opinion in favour, of giving full termination benefits to the first party.

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