1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This is an application under section 25 (1) (b) of , the East.
2. Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter mentioned as the Act.
3. The case of the first party was that he was a permanent worker under the second party as Junior.
4. Operator "fit the Urea Fertilizer Factory, Ghorasal, Dacca. Since hit employment on 5-3-1969, his pay was Rs. .280. On 4-3-1970 the second party abruptly terminated the services of the first S, party by an order with effect from 5-3-1970. This termination order was passed illegally, arbitrarily and by way of V, victimisation. The first party was granted only one months to notice pay in spite of the fact that the first party was permanent worker and that be was entitled to 90 days' notice pay, Compensation for 14 days, unveiled of leave salary, etc. No reason was assigned for terminating the services of the first party. But the second party recruited some more junior operators after the services of the first party were terminated. So it appears that the second party acted with mala fide intention. Being aggrieved the first party sent a grievance petition on 16-3-197fi under certificate of posting which was followed by a reminder dated 6-4-1970 sent by registered post enclosing therewith a copy of the grievance petition dated 16-3-1970. The second party neither redressed the grievance nor favoured him with a reply. Hence this petition for either re-instatement to his former post with full back wages and other legal dues, or for termination benefits as permissible under the law. He has, in the alternative, claimed 1,157'34 as 90 days' notice pay, compensation for 14 days and unveiled annual leave for 20 days.
5. The second party did not enter into appearance but by registered post sent a letter wherein it was stated that the first party was in the service of the second party from 12-3-1969 to 12-3-1970. It was stated that his services were terminated under section 19 of the Act and he was told to collect his emoluments, which he did not. It has further been stated in the letter that the second party agreed to pay his termination benefits for 90 days notice pay, 14 days' wages as compensation and 11 days' annual leave.
6. Now, possibly the second party has wanted to pay all the benefits realising the position that he has terminated the services- of the first party with mala fide intention and that his impugned order would not be sustainable in law. It is admitted that the second party has recruited some other employees of the category after the illegal termination of the services of the first party. This fact establishes firmly the case of the first party for re-instatement to his former post: Since the Urea Fertilizer Factory is a Government sponsored firm manag--ed by the E. P,: I. D. C., the manager should not have taken a private and personal view of the matter in dispensing with the services of the first party. Getting a job is very difficult in these days and mere termination benefits cannot meet the requirements of a workman who has committed no mis--conduct and who, for no fault of his own is being taken out of employment.
7. In view of all this I find that this is a fit case for ordering re-instatement.
8. Therefore, this application is allowed ex parte in favour of the first party. The second party is directed to re-instate the first party to his former employment with all back wages within thirty days from the date of passing this order. He will also report compliance of this order to this Court.
9. Members on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of re-instatement of the first party with back wages.