X First Party Versus Z Marketing Limited Second parties

IN THE 1ST LABOUR COURT, DHAKA

COMPLAINT CASE NO._________ OF__________

In the matter of

Section 25 of the Employment of Labour (S.O.)

Act, 1965

AND

In the matter of

X

Raja Bari (Tea Shop)

Adjacent to Primary School, Savar

Dhaka

First Party

Versus

1. Z Marketing Limited

331/2, Tajuddin Ahmed Road, Bara Moghbazar

Dhaka-1217

2. The Managing Director

Z Marketing Limited

331/2, Tajuddin Ahmed Road, Bara Moghbazar

Dhaka-1217

Second parties

Facts in favour of First party

Introduction

  1. Mr. X was employed by the Z Markeing on 07.01.2001
  2. His monthly basic was taka 1300.00.
  3. He had an excellent record of service.

About accident

  1. Mr. X had an accident on 9.12.01 while he was returning from Chittagong after delivery of goods.
  2. He was admitted in the Hospital
  3. Mr. M. Shahjahan, officer of the second party, filed a General Diary with the Savar Police Station concerning the said accident on 11.12.2001.
  4. Mr. X was in the Hospital for a long time for treatment.
  5. His right/left leg was amputated to save his life.

Wages and allowance

  1. Mr. X submitted an application for wages, allowances including treatment allowance on 26.06.2002.
  2. He was assured to these but no payment is yet to be made.
  3. Mr. X wrote another letter on 11.01.2002.
  4. He was verbally told that he would be paid soon.
  5. Mr. X sent two letters by registered post on dated 26.01.2003 and 09.03.2003 through BLAST.
  6. But he is yet to be paid.
  7. Mr. X sent another letter to the Z Marketing on 22.12.2003 where he claimed wages and five bonuses since the accident.
  8. The lawyer of the Z informed that Mr. X was discharged with the effect from 03.01.2002.
  9. But no letter was ever delivered to Mr. X.
  10. Moreover, the Z did not disclose this fact in the WS of Compensation Case No. 01/2003.
  11. Mr. X filed the Compensation Case No. 01/2003 in the past and withdrew it and filed IRO case for resumption of duties.
  12. Having the notice from the Court, the Z sent a back dated discharge letter.
  13. Mr. X got the letter on 10.01.2005.
  14. Mr. X submitted a grievance petition to Z on 18.01.2005.
  15. Mr. X was forced to withdraw the IRO case and filed the present Compensation Case.
  16. The discharge order was sent to Mr. X on 30.12.2004.
  17. Therefore, Mr. X was in service up to 29.12.2004.
  18. As such he is entitled to all service benefits including arrear wages till that time.

Grievance procedure

  1. The Z did not allow any personal hearing as per Section 25 of ELSO Act, 1965.
  2. Mr. X is bound to file this Case as result.

Prayer

  1. That so called discharge order dated 03.01.2002 is illegal and not binding upon Mr. X.
  2. Make the discharge order effective since 30.12.2004.
  3. The Z is liable to pay all service benefits including arrear wages till 29.12.2004.

Cross Examination

  1. You were appointed as a driver by the Second Party on 07.01.2001, weren’t you?
  2. Your basic salary was Tk. 1300/-, wasn’t it?
  3. Your total salary including other allowances was Tk. 2830/-, wasn’t it?
  4. The accident occurred on 09.12. 2001;
  5. During the period between the date of appointment and the accident, there was no increase in your salary;
  6. Your claim that your last total salary is Tk. 4,200/- is false and madeup, isn’t it?
  7. You did not mention that your total salary is Tk. 4,200 in your petition did you? All that was stated in the petition was that your basic salary is Tk. 1300/-, wasn’t it? Your initial basic salary at the time of appointment as a permanent worker was also Tk. 1300/-, wasn’t it? Normally when a person’s salary is increased basic salary is also increased, isn’t it? From the petition it appears that your last basic salary was Tk. 1,300/-. Therefore according to your petition your basic salary was not increased. Therefore, your claim in the Examination in chief is false and fabricated!!!

1. After the accident you were admitted into Pongu Hospital?

2. A representative of the Second Party visited the accident spot and arranged your admission in the Hosptal?

3. The Second Party also arranged and paid fo the medical and medicine expences didn’t it? So far the company has paid more than Tk. 30,000/- regarding this, didn’t it?

4. The Second Party also arranged the payment of Tk. 10,000/- from the insurance company (Prime Insurance Company Limited) vide letter dated May 12, 2002;

5. Apart from the above, Tk. 30,000/- was paid to you as compensation (under Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923);

6. So your statement that the Second Party did not do anything at all for you, is false.

  1. After being admitted to the Hospital, the doctors had to amputate your right leg to save your life, right?
  2. Your job in with the Second party was to drive vehicles from one place to another, right?
  3. As per your appointment letter you had no other job except driving, right?
  4. Driving requires the use of both legs, right?
  5. Your loss of a leg meant that you were no longer capable of fulfilling your duties, right?
  6. Therefore, your discharge by the Second Party on 03.01.2002 was justified, right?
  1. The Second Party vide their letter dated 03.01.2002 discharged you on the ground of physical incapability, didn’t it?
  1. Knowing that you were dismissed on 03.01.2002, you sent a letter on 22.12.03 to the Second Party and claimed wages and bonuses to which you were not entitled to, didn’t you?
  2. The lawyer of the Second Party vide letter dated 11.02.2004 again informed you that you were discharged on 03.01.2002;
  1. You submitted your grievance petition to the Second Party on 18.01.205, right?
  2. You knew that you were discharged on 03.01.2002, right? NO
  3. You also knew from the Letter of the Lawyer of the Second Party dated 11.02.2004 that you were discharged on 03.01.2002, right?

Suggestions:

  1. Your statement that your last salary was Tk. 4200 is false.
  2. You were lawfully discharged by the Second Party on 03.01.2002; Your statement that you were discharged on 30.12.2004 is false.
  3. the Second Party has already paid you all legal dues.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.