1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-This case arises out of an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. Abdul Latif is the petitioner. He alleges that he was an employee under the second party, Gul Ahmed Jute Mills Limited. He joined service on 27-8-68. It is alleged by the petitioner that he is an active Trade Unionist and for that he incurred displeasure of the second party. It is said that he was frivolously charge-sheeted on 26-8- 69 and that there was no impartial enquiry on the charge sheet and the petitioner was not also given opportunity to represent his case. He was subsequently dismissed on 12-9-69 and against the said order of dismissal he submitted a grievance petition, but to no effect. So, the petitioner has come up before this Court for his re-instatement in service with all attendant benefits.
2. The second party while admitting that the petitioner was in their service contend that he was justly charge-sheeted for misconduct and having been found guilty of the same he has been legally dismissed from service.
3. We have got to consider in this case whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service is legal and valid and we have got to consider also what benefit the petitioner is entitled to.
4. DECISION It is undisputed that the petitioner was in the service of the second party and his appointment began from 27-8-68. It appears that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 26-8-69. The allegations in the charge-sheet are that on 23-8-69 the petitioner accused the Labour Officer for taking bribe from newly recruited workers, that he threatened to break the chairs of the Labour Office and he is said to have snatched away the charge-sheet from the table of his departmental head and passed away the same outside the mill. The petitioner, it appears, was directed to explain the charges within 3 days of receipt of the letter of charge. Under the law, the worker should get full 3 days' time for explanation. That having not been given the charge offends against a mandatory provisions of law. It appears that there was a sort of enquiry. The evidence of some witnesses were recorded, but the sheets on which the evidence are recorded do not show that opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the complainant, nor do they show that the petitioner was present in the enquiry. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the enquiry was held behind his back. The enquiry report finds that on a certain date he tore of the charge-sheet which was pasted in the notice board anal that the petitioner forcibly worked in the mills on 29-8-69. These incidents are not, however, incorporated in the charge sheet. The enquiry report finds the petitioner guilty for forcing himself into the mills to work and this is said to tantamount to insubordination and trespass in the Mill premises. This finding is prejudicial to the petitioner in so far as there is no such allegation in the alleged charge-sheet.
5. What the witnesses have said is that the petitioner came to Labour Office with some men and asked the Labour Officer for appointing them and that the Labour Officer having refused, the petitioner charged the Labour Officer for recruiting new hands on taking bribe. The allegation of taking bribe may or may not be true. Whether this amounts to riotous or disorderly behaviour has yet to be considered. There does not appear any pointed evidence against two other charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. The enquiry report shows that the petitioner produced some witnesses, but the deposition of those witnesses have not been produced and we are not in a position to guess what they said. The enquiry held appears to be perfunctory and it has not fulfilled the principles of natural justice. The petitioner in his explanation said that he demanded before the Deputy Director of Labour for a Labour Officer who can understand the language of the Labourers in place of the present one. It is said that this enraged the Labour Officer. That may be true. In view of what I have discussed herein--before it is clear that the order of dismissal of the petitioner is not legal and valid.
6. The petitioner has prayed for re-instatement in service. The feeling between the petitioner and the second party is such that it is not desirable to thrust the petitioner on the unwilling employer by way of re-instatement. The order for re-instatement is a matter for discretion with the Court. For apparent reasons I refuse to pass any order for re-instatement of the petitioner in service, but in view of the fact that the petitioner has been illegally removed from service I am inclined to give him full termination benefits. It is undisputed that the petitioner was a permanent worker. There is nothing in the application of the petitioner whether he was a monthly rated worker or a daily rated worker. It is of course clear that he was in service for over one year. Considering everything, it is held that the petitioner will get the following benefits from the second party:
(1) 90 days' pay, if the petitioner is a monthly rated worker, or 45 days' pay, of the petitioner is a daily rated worker, as the case may be, in lieu of notice;
(2) 14 days' wages as compensation
(3) Arrear wages up to 12-9-69 minus the subsistence? allowance if any, paid ;
(4) Wages for earned leave, if any, due.
7. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the petitioner within one month from today.
8. In arriving at the decision I have considered the opinions of the learned Members. Both of them have advised for giving termination benefits under section 19(1) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965 to the petitioner.