1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appli--cation under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965.
2. The case of the applicant is that he was a permanent worker under the second party being appointed a Dice Mistry in February 1968 at a monthly wage of Rs. 350.
3. He took leave from the 2nd party during the disturbance period and came back to duty on 24-11- 69, but he was not allowed to join. He was verbally dismissed by the 2nd party though be performed duty on 24-11-69. He then sent grievance petition to the 2nd party, but instead of satisfactory reply he got a charge-sheet from the second party to which he did not reply. Nor did he return to duty thereafter. There--after he filed this case. He prays for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages.
4. The second party entered appearance and contested the case. The case of the second party is that the first party remained on unauthorised absence since November 1969, and appeared in the Office on 25-11-69, when thereafter he was asked to submit joining report, he left the Office never to return. He submitted a false grievance petition, but when he was charge-sheeted for his unauthorised absence he neither replied nor turned up for duty. The second party is still, willing to take him back to their fold but cannot allow any back wages as this absence is due to his latches.
5. Points for determination::
(1) Whether the first party was dismissed from service verbally as claimed by him ;
(2) What relief, if any, he is entitled to?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears in this case that first party did no, really apply for leave formally though he had to remain away from Office, according to him, from 19-11-69 to 23-11-69. It transpires that this was a period of Civil Commotion and the first party failed to attend Office on these days. For difference of opinion over the nature of this absence, he had not applied for leaving formally but on this issue, he left the Office, which he construed to be his dismissal, as he did not again go back to that place.
7. Instead, he sent his grievance petition to which the second party replied by a charge-sheet against him for unauthorised absence. He 'took no further action against this which means that he did not go back to his work in apprehension of some trouble. This is his failing and he cannot give a good explana--tion for his absence after he received the charge-sheet. The second party has clearly said that the first party was not dismissed and the reply to the grievance petition made it clear to him. If even after that he continued to remain absent without replying to the charge-sheet where appears to have been based on facts, the blame must be entirely.
8. However, it appears that there was a misunderstanding between the parties and this first party did not want to waste his leave for his absence which was due to Civil Commotion and that on this point he deserved some consideration.
9. Now that the employer wants to take him back considering his services, as good, I think, he should be told to accept this offer. Circumstances indicate clearly that first party was responsible for alt this unauthorised absence and second party, in the net result, was quite considerate to him.
10. The application is, therefore, allowed on contest. The second party is directed to re-instate the first party to his former post within 15 days of passing this order, provided the first party reports for duty.
11. The re-instatement is without any back wages for the period of unauthorised absence till he joins his duty. But he must be given all his arrear wages which he earned by working till he went on unauthorised absence on 19-11-69.
12. I have consulted the ;opinion of the Members in arriving at this decision. .