1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an applica--tion under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case 'of the first party was that he was a permanent worker as a Sales Clerk under the second party since 23-2-1968 and, was lastly drawing Rs. 495---00 per month as his wages. He continued in service till 15-11-1969 when his services were verbally dispensed with by the second party in violation of the legal principle and provisions. He was not given any termination benefits, The second party had been irregular in making payment to the first party since August 1969 and that there was accumulation of pay of the first party, the outstanding being Rs. 95'00 for August 1969 and full salaries of the next 3 months. The first party faced financial difficulties due to this son- payment of, salaries for more -than 3 months. He misted on payment, but the second party did not make payment. But the second party promised that his entire mount would be paid on 15-11-1969.
3. When on 15-11-1969 he demanded payment, the second party avoided payment on this or that pretext and thereafter on more insistence his services were abruptly and arbitrarily terminated orally. There was no payment of arrear salaries and termination benefits. He sent a grievance petition on 16-11-1969 by ordinary post with a copy to the Joint Director of Labour, Dacca making a claim of Rs. 3,569'00. The second party was called to the office of the Joint Director on 18-11-1969 and he promised to make payment on 21-11-1969. But only a sum of Rs. 500-00 was paid on that day. As the second party failed to make payment of his dues, the first party sent a grievance petition by registered post on 26-11-1969. But the second party refused to accept the grievance petition which was ultimately returned to the first party by the postal department. He has, therefore, approached the Court claiming termination benefits along with his arrear salaries and other dues.
4. He has been paid a total amount of Rs. 1,000-00 out of his arrear wages.
5. The second party filed a written statement in which it was stated that the first party was a Sales Officer and that the office of the second party at Dacca was merged with its Narayangonj Office with effect from 1-11-1969. The first party stopped going office at Narayangonj from 1-11-1969 in spite of the request of the second party. There was termination as stated by him. The first party was requested through Narayan--gonj Accountant of the office to resume his' duties and .to receive his payment. But he refused either to attend to the office or to receive payment there. No grievance petition was received by the second party. The second party attended the office of the Joint Director of Labour and entered into a mutual agreement signed by the parties and countersigned by the Inspector of Labour with terms to pay Rs. 1,085'02 within 21-11-1969. Rs. 500.00 was paid to him on 21-11-1969 and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid shortly. As the proprietor was out of Dacca, the first party's grievance petition could not be replied by him. The first party voluntarily stopped going to the office. There was no termination of service whatsoever. So the petition should be dismissed.
6. Point for determination is whether the services of the first party were verbally terminated on 15-11- 1969, and what relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
7. FINDINGS AND DECISION In the present case it has been admitted by, the parties that the Dacca office of the second party was merged with that of the Narayangonj office and that the first party never attended office at Narayangonj. The second party's case is that the first party voluntarily stopped attending the Narayangonj Office since 1-11-1969. It has been stated that there was no termination of services of the first party. It was a voluntary desertion of duties by the first party. The first party's case is that the second party did not pay him his arrear dues partly for the month of August and full salary for the months of September and October up to the date of his termination of services on 15-11-1969.
8. Since then he has been given some amount through the good offices of the Joint Director of Labour and also this Court. The first party is completely silent regarding his attendance in the office of the second party at Narayangonj. His case is that his services have been terminated with effect from 15-11-1969. But all his witnesses stated that the office of the second party was shifted to Narayangonj. It is not the case of the first party, that he ever attended the office at Narayangonj after it shifted to Narayangonj with the sister concern of the same owner. In such circumstances it appears that the first party voluntarily stopped going to the office of the second party as soon as the office was shifted to Narayangonj from Motijheel Commercial Area, Dacca.
9. Now the first party's case is that be was not paid the arrear wages for September and October and partly for August and November 1969. He has so far been paid Rs. 1,000.00 out of his arrear dues. His pay has been admitted to be Rs. 495 per month. So his total arrears are as follows: Rs.
10. For August 196995.00 September and October 1969990.00 1st to 15th November 1969247.00 Total1,332.00 Now all the witnesses stated that his services were terminated verbally on 15-11-1964 by Mr. Abul Kalam, one of the partners of the second party firm. As about the grievance petition, it has been said that the same was not received by the second party. But from the letter produced in Court it appears that the same was refused by the second party as it was addressed to Mr. Abul Kalam by name and he was out of Dacca at that time. The same could have been accepted by others and could have been delivered to Mr. Abul Kalam on different occasion. So it has been presumed that the grievance letter was received by the second party. It cannot be a fact that the second party had no right to shift its once from Dacca to Narayangonj. The second party was under no obligation to keep the first 'party in an office at Dacca only for his sake. The first party should have attended the office at Narayangonj from the same date it was shifted from Dacca and his refusal or non-attendance to his duties at Narayangonj amounts to his voluntary dereliction and desertion of duty and as such, he is not entitled to receive any termination benefits. It has now become a fashion for the workers to come with imaginary grievance of termination of services when they, for their own personal reasons resign from their services or for better employment elsewhere or for personal reasons voluntarily desert their office. The witnesses of the first party on this score could not prove that the first party ever attended the office of the second party at Narayangonj though the second party in their written statement clearly stated that the office of the second party was shifted to Narayangonj and started working with effect from 1-11-1969. The first party's witnesses stated that the first party went to Samtinagar residence of the second party partner Mr. Abul Kalam on 15-11-1969 for demanding his arrear dues. This show that he was not attending the office at Narayangonj. So it is clear that the first party voluntarily deserted his duties by riot attending the office at Narayangonj since the shifting of the office from Dacca to Narayangonj. As such he is not' entitled to any termination benefits. But he can only claim his arrear dues up to 15-11-1969 minus the amount already paid to him.
11. In the result, the application of the first party is dismissed on contest. But the first party is entitled to receive the arrear dues minus the amount already paid to him. This amount may be deposited by the second party in Court in favour of the first party, within 30 days of passing this order.
12. Members have been consulted. But only one member has given his written opinion.