1. MD NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25 (1) (6) of the East- Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred -to as the Act: The case of the first party is that he was a motor driver under the second party being appointed on 19-8-65 and was drawing a last pay of Rs. 235.00 per month. - Trouble cropped upon 1640, Whoa ft fast patty wont on duty to the house of the second party's Chairman, one, Mr. Mahbub Raja, son V the Chairman, behaved roughly with him and acted in a manner 3angerous to the life of the first party. He went to protest to the Chairman, but he was not listened to. On the other hand, he was told to resign which he refused and performed his duties on that day. When on the following day at about 8 a.m. he came to his duties he was not allowed to do so. He found another driver in the employment of the Chairman. The first party was told to see Mr. Aziz Mohammad Bhai, Sales Director of the second party. When he saw Mr. Aziz Bhai, he was direct--ed to hand over the key and other papers of the car. He inform--ed that the services of the first party were no longer required by the second party. At about 11-30 a.m. of the same 'day the first party was taken away by Mr. Mubarik Bhai, Managing Director of the second party. He' tried to persuade the first party to resign voluntarily. But the first party again refused and lodged G. D. Entry No. 1387 at the Tejgoan P.
2. S. feeling his posi--tion in secure. The first party was not allowed to resume his duties. On the other hand, his services were terminated illegally. The reason for this was that .the first party always worked overtime in excess of the normal 8 hours duty. He even worked sometimes up to 2 a. m. He along with another driver submitted a joint petition for overtime payment, festival leave, casual leave and medical leave-like other workers of the second party. While he was taking the shelter of lave, he received 2 letters, dated 19-6-69 and 21-6-69 at a time. He was charged with unauthorised absence. The first party in his grievance petition dated 26-6-69, denied the allegation of unauthorised absence and informed the second party that he was ready to resign. The second party remained silent and hence, he approached the- Court. The first party prayed for directing the second party to re-instate him to his former post with all back wages.
3. The case of the second party is that the first party driver was employed to run the personal car of the Chairman of the Company. Suddenly on 17-6-69 at 11 a.m. the first party started behaving mysteriously. He appeared before the Manag--ing Director of the Company and demanded all his dues stating that he would no longer serve the Company. As he started bargaining, he received no encouragement from the Managing Director to resign. Thereafter he went away. He was told to resume his work, but he did not resume. On the other hand, he raised the point of insecurity of life leave facilities, overtime allowance, etc. He never went back to his work and practically gave verbal resignation: Points for determination are
(1) Whether the services of the first party was verbally terminated by the second party on 17-6-69 or whether the first party voluntarily resigned on that day ?.
(9) What relief, if any, the first party is entitled to?
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenient discussion. In the present case the first party has prayed for directing the second party to reinstate him to his former post with all back wages. As against this the second party has submitted that they had directed the first party to resume his duties by 2 letters. But in reply to these letters to resume his duties, the first party sent a letter wherein he has raised some peculiar points. It would appear from his so-called grievance petition or his reply to the two other letters of the employer, dated 19-6-69 and 21-6-69, that he replied as follows: "I am ready to 'resume my duties, provided I be given the assurance guarantee that my life will not, be in danger, I will not be complicated in any false case or victimised in any way and I will be paid-for my overtime dues and unenjoyed facilities": Thereafter there was no correspondence between the parties, and the first party came to this Court with this application. If this reply of the first party was to be taken into consideration without the other attending circumstances, one may presume that the second party already offered him to join to his duties, but the first party raised some conditions. Further, he did net join his duties thereafter. The second party states that he worked on 16th June 1969 but on the 17th June 1969,he verbally resigned and left his work. In such circumstances, one may not like to think that he could get an order of re-instatement to, his former post because, he has not complied with the direction of the Company to resume his duties. As for the assurances and guarantee, the first party demanded from his employer, it has been submitted that no employer can give such guarantee.
5. We can only say at this point that this poor employee is a driver. Under very peculiar circumstances he had to demand this assurance and guarantee and while we analyse the circumstances we find -a completely different case which, if not warranted a re-instatement but definitely does not speak to prove the contention of the employer that he voluntarily resigned. We have to probe into the allegation that Altaf Hossain the first party driver voluntarily and verbally resigned on 17-6-69. In this connection few witnesses have been examined by the first party and one witness has been examined by the second party. It appears that the first party was appointed with effect from 19-8-65 at. a monthly pay of Rs. 150.00 inclusive of allowan--ces. In the confirmation plus appointment letter, Exh. 1, it was clearly stated by the Company that he would be entitled to leave facilities. The first party performed his duties well and he was given his increments and even his pay was raised to Rs. 220.00 with effect from 19-8-68.
6. Now the background of the entire anomaly as stated by the fiat party is that he along with another drivel Aftabuddin submitted a representation to the Director of the Company on 16-5-69 demanding 8 hours" working day and overtime allowance in excess of these 8 hours. He along with Aftabuddin sent another application for consideration of the said prayer as they received no reply.
7. As about the overtime work the first party has submitted certain papers wherein it was shown that even on festival days the driver had to work overtime and they were not allowed to enjoy the festive days. The Company's, working hours were -stated to be very' long and indeed longer than in existence in any other Company or Government or Semi-Government institutions. A copy of the Standing Order No. 95 of 1969 marked Exh. 8 shows that the working hours have been fixed from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. with a break for one hour for lunch, in rather a revision of the previously established long working hours. In that very order the Company also threatened to 'revert to previous longer working hours in case the employees of the Company were not efficient, regular and punctual. In view of all this it is quite clear that there was longer working hours and the drivers including the first party used to work overtime and even were not allowed to enjoy festival 'days such as the Eid. Such conditions are not unknown in this country. But in case they were given overtime allowances, possibly there grievances would have been redressed. But in the present case it 'has been alleged that in spite of representation by the drivers the Company did not reply to them and took a stern attitude for having had the audacity to submit a representation. This is the origin of the trouble.
8. Later for what reasons not clearly brought forth, we find that the first party was put to hardship and difficulties by even the members of the family of the Chairman of the Company, as it would appear from the evidence of the first party and his associates.
9. P. W. 1, the first party driver deposed that his last pay was Rs. 235.00 and he sent representation for leave facilities, and overtime allowance. He stated that they had to join their duties at 7 a.m. and had to work up to 9 p.m. with of course time for lunch break. He said that they had to work 12 hours per day, on an average. No leave was given on Sundays. He had to work on Eid days also. He did not enjoy any annual leave. The actual occurrence took place on 16-6-69 when he went to the house of Mr. Mohammad Bhai, the Chairman of the Company. At 10-45 a.m. while he was still waiting, he asked the bearer on duty if the Begum would go out. The bearer informed him that Begum is not still ready. So he went out for a pan in a nearby shop. While he was coming back, he saw Mr. Mahbub Raja, son of Mr. Mohammad Bhai, driving a car at ah abnormal speed from the opposite direction. He saw that Mahbub Raja intended to run over him. Though he took care to stand aside, even then Mahbub Raja pushed him by maneuvering the car and left the scene. He fell down and was injured. - Local people took him to the house of Mr. Mohammad Bhai. When he and other people reported the matter to the Begum, she, instead of consoling him, abused him and told him to go out. She also threatened him with arrest by the Police. The driver then waited outside out of fear. At 5-30 came. The Chairman went straight into the house and so the first party could not report anything then and- there. At 6-15 p.m. he met Mr. Mohammad Bhai, but he (Mohammad Bhai) on hearing the driver also abused him and told him to go. On the next morning he again went for duty and found Mr. Mohammad Bhai gong in a car with another drive. When he approached him, Mr.Mohammad Bhai advised him to go and see Mr. Aziz Mohd. Bhai in the office. But at the office Aziz Bhai advised him to hand over the key and all papers of the car. Mr. Aziz Bhai then asked him to sign a piece of white paper. When he asked-for the reason, he was told that his job was no longer existing and he was told to leave after signing the paper. He came outside and waited. Hs met Mr. Mobarak Bhai who asked him to accompany him in a car. This Ma. Mobarak Bhai persuaded him while in the 'car to sign in the paper. But as he refused, he was abused in filthy language. The first party then lodged, G. D. Entry No. 1387, dated 17-6-69 at the Tejgaon P. S: apprehending that his life might be in danger. While he was preparing his grievance petition, he did not receive. .2 letters from the second party, but he did not receive any reply tee his griev--ance petition, He denied that he voluntarily resigned. In cross-examination Altaf Hossain first party stated that for a driver like him who was holding the licence for motor car only, there was no better chance than what' he got in the 'second party company. . He denied that he submitted a fatso case.
10. P. W. 2, Aftabuddin, another driver of the second party Company stated that he was verbally discharged by, the Company on 14-2-70. He corroborated P. W. 1 regarding long working hours from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Both of them stated that they had to work up to 2 a.m. in the night. P. W. 2 also made similar-alle--gations and stated that he was a co-signatory with Altaf" Hossain in the representation made to the second party. As about the long working hours and non-payment of overtime allowance and leave facilities there is no, contradiction from the second party. P.W. 3 made the similar allegations and corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. On the other hand, the second party's only witness who was examined it the cask said nothing in this connection. He on the other hand, that he did not bring any attendance register or over time register, as they have none of the sort. Now in the present case the relevant persons such as, Mr. Mohammad Bhai, Aziz Bhai and Mobarak Bhai were not produced, and as a result, the oral statement of P. Ws.l and 2 remained unrebutted and they go unchallenged. There were some factual allegations and these allegations had to be refuted, if any, by bringing in oral evidence. But there was no such attempt on the part of the second party to controvert the allegations of the first party. The letters of the second party did not speak anything except the offer of the second party to the first party to resume his duties. But the first party clearly in his grievance petition has given his case stating certain facts which show that there was a background leading to his leaving the duties. As these allegations directly refereed to the Chairman, Directors and other important dignitaries of the Company, they could only be controverted by them and they could also be redressed by them only. As regards the allegations contained in the grievance petition the second party had no submission either by oral statement or by documentary evidence. While the threat to life came from the employers, the first party had a legitimate, claims to security from them. That is why we have round in the grievance petition that the first party made a peculiar demand for personal security, etc., from his employers.
11. As the second party did not want to commit anything in writing, they have convenient--ly not replied to these allegations of the first party. The offer by the Company of the first party to resume his duties was nothing but an afterthought to his C. H. Entry which must have been communicated to them by the Police. The driver has clearly stated that he had a very good job under the Company, and that he would still go back there. But it seems that at this stage the second party .is not willing to take hire bark. The so-called offers contained in the two letters of the Company were not actually offers to him, as we find that Altaf Hossain was tried to be persuaded or coerced to sign a resignation letter which he did not. The Company wanted his resignation whereby they could have honorably got rid of the driver without giving him any termination benefits, etc. Then they created an atmosphere which was not congenial for the security of the person of the driver.
12. There was no attendance register to mark his attendance. So under all these circumstances Altaf Hossain was compelled to go away. All these, accumulated facts clearly indicate that the services of the first party were forcibly terminated with effect from 18.6-69 and he was not allowed any' benefits,, not even his pay for the month of June, 1969. As at now appeared from the circumstances that the second party is not wilting to take him back and the circumstances leading to his expulsion do no indicate that he was any longer welcome there, I do not think it proper to direct the second party to re-instate him to his former post. Matters relating to the overtime allowance and leave facilities cannot be agitated in this application. They are only circumstances indicating the background of the present case.
13. In view of this I allow this application on contest and direct that the first party ,be given the following termination, benefits
(1) 90 days' notice pay in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 235.00 per month.
(2) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for 4 years' service.
(3) Unpaid salary up to 17th of June 1969 at the rate of Rs. 235.00. per month.
(4) Unavailed annual leave salary for 30 days at the rate of Rs. 235.00 per month.
(5) Provident Fund, and other dues, if any.
14. The amount shall be calculated and deposited by the second party in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date passing this order.
15. The members on consultation agreed with my above findings and advised to give termination benefits to the first party.