1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--The 'first party filed this case 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 is that he was appointed as machineman in the second party's press in the month of May 1968 and his pay was Rs. 105.00 per month. He was on sick leave for 14 days with effect from 17-3-70 to 30-3-70. On 31-3-1970 when he went to join his duty the second party did not allow him to join and terminated his services orally without showing him any reason. He sent a grievance petition on 7-4-70 by registered post with A/D. After receipt of the notice the second party wrote a letter to -the first party and warned him to show cause on 7-5-1970, but did not direct him to join. On 16-5-1970 the second arty, served a show-cause notion sad the first party sent explanation. Being aggrieved he filed this case in the Court with prayer for directing the second party to re-instate him in his former post or for full termination benefits as the case may be.
3. The second party filed a written statement in which they denied the allegations. It was submitted that the first party voluntarily absented from his duty with effect from 17-3-1970 without any intimation or permission. When he appeared is the first week of April 1970 he was told to explain his unautho--rised absence. But instead, he sent a grievance petition which was duly replied to by the second party. The first party was served with a notice under section 18 (1) (b) of the Act for his unauthorised absence. He replied to the same. The first party made blatant distortion of fact. The second party while considering the reply of show-cause notice had found the explanation unsatisfactory and as such dismissed the first party from the service. The case should be dismissed.
4. Point for determination in the present case is whether the first party's services were illegally terminated and if he is entitled to any relief. '
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION One witness each was examined from the parties. The parties have submitted their papers. The first party stated that he went on leave without previous permission with effect from 11-3-1970. He was suffering from high fever, etc. After first 2/3 days he sent a petition to his employer through another person whose name he did not disclose. He went to attend his duties on 31-3-1970, but he was refused employment. He however said that before going on leave he told about this to Babu and then said to Chand Mia. But neither this Babu nor Chand Mia has been produced as witness. The other unnamed person through whom he is said to have sent the petition for leave has not been produced in Court. On the other hand, it appears that he has filed his prayer for permitting him to join his duties dated 31-3-1970 in which be did not mention about his any previous application. He admitted in cross-examination that there were 40/45 workers in the Press and 4/5 are literate staff and the latter used to write down the application of the workers as and when necessary. He did not say that he approached any one of these literate members of the staff to write down his petition for leave. After 1969 the workers had to take prior permission before going on leave. The second party has produced Exhs. A, B, and C in support of their claim that on 2 previous dates the first party himself applied for prior leave and in case of Exh. C it appears that he was on leave for 4 days without permission and he was warned for that. It was suggested that in the mufassil area pairing of voter list started one month before it started in Dacca, and that the machineman in mufassil area used to earn Rs. 50.00 to Rs. 100.00 per day at that time. The medical certificate of Sharif Mia, dated 31-3-1970 granted by a doctor mentioned only high fever and acute pain. It is doubtful that a Youngman like Sharif Mia would remain, confined in bed only for unspecified fever witch pain, etc. The second party produced Chand Mia, a Clerk who received and despatched letters and looked after the Labour problems. He stated that the first party did not apply for leave prior to his departure and did not send any application during his absence. He as told to show cause but he did not show any. In read, he sent a grievance petition. He admitted that there was no receipt or despatch register in the Press. He further admitted that the arrear pay of the first party for the month of March 1970, remained unpaid. From the other papers filed it appears that no enquiry was held in the matter though Sharif Mia denied the charge of unautborised absence. He was told to show cause within 3 days though it should be more than 3 days. In this Court we have given both the parties a chance to adduce their evidence. The first party could not bring adequate good, evidence to prove that he was really ill at the time and that he obtained prior permission to leave the station anti the office and that he sent an application during his absence and that he really came to join his duties on 31-3-1979 and that he could really satisfied the other party about hid absence. The doctor's certificate is very vague. He did not mention from what kind of fever he was suffering. It was a long absence and he ought to have sent application even if he could not obtain prior permission or sanction of leave. He did not produce the man who bore his application to the second party. On the other hand, the second party's witness stated that he did not send any such letter or obtained prior permission for leave. The, doctor has also not been examined by the first party to prove his bona fides. No other witness such as the relative or the house-keeper or the attendant or the neighbour or the nurse 'has been examined by the first party that he was really ill during this period of absence. The procedural defects can only over--come the real problem when injustice has been done, In that present case it appears that the first patty really has no case and so only for the sake of procedural defect such as the lack of enquiry, he cannot be re-instated or be given termination benefits as substantively he has no case. He remained on unauthorised absence without any permission or leave and did not send any leave application during his such absence. He could not explain, his absence with sufficient material and evidence which could be believed. He was given proper opportunity to prove his case in ibis Court by-adducing good evidence as required under the law. He failed to prove such a case here. A substantive justice has been done to him here by giving him a full hearing which possibly the employer failed to do and when on merits I find that the first party has no case worthy of consideration for directing his re- instatement or giving him termination benefits and as I find that by his such unauthorised absence the first pasty has committed misconduct even after a last warning admitted by him, he cannot be given the reliefs prayed for.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above. I dismiss this application on contest but-without costs.
7. I have considered the written opinion of the members while giving this judgment.