1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-This case arises out of an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. Abul Kashem, Darwan of the 2nd party (Wood Treating, and Processing Indus--tries, Kalurghat, Chittagong) is the petitioner in this case. He says that he was appointed in service on 25-7-1969 and was serv--ing honestly. He was, however, charged with negligence of duty and misconduct on some indefinite allegations and his service was dispensed with by a letter, dated 9-12-1969. Against that the petitioner submitted a grievance petition which was not even responded by the 2nd party. The petitioner then fled this case on 27-1-1970.
2. 2nd party contests the case by filing a written statement wherein various legal grounds have been raised. On matters of facts it is being contended that the petitioner was guilty of various latches and his service had been terminated.
3. The points that engage our attention for determination are-whether the termination of service of the petitioner is legal and valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to any benefit in this case.
4. The fact remains that the petitioner was charged with neglect of duty and misconduct by a letter dated 9-12-1969 and by the said letter the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with, with effect from 9-12-1969. If this dispensing', with the service of the petitioner is a dismissal from service o the ground of misconduct, it is invalid, in so far as the petitioner was not given any chance to explain his conduct as provided in section 18 of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. If it is not a case of retrenchment under section 12 of the Act on the ground of redundancy, then again the termination of the services of the petitioner cannot also be termed as discharge on the ground of ill health or for any reason analogous to that. So from whatever angle of vision we may consider the case of the Petitioner we cannot but hold that it is a case of illegal removal of the petitioner from service.
5. The petitioner submitted a grievance petition to refute all the allegations and humbly prayed for being heard in person and for adducing evidence. But the prayer of the petitioner bore no fruit. It has been contended that the grievance petition contains no prayer for re-instatement and maintains that the petitioner tie considered to be on duty and as such it contains no cause of action. But the fact remains that the petitioner has prayed for rescinding the order of termination of service and that in effect as a prayer for. re-instatement considering everything I am inclined to hold that the removal of the petitioner from service is illegal and invalid.
6. The petitioner is a permanent worker under the 2nd party and he alleges so in his application. 2nd party does not controvert that in its written objection but simply denying the same does not say that he is temporary. The petitioner has prayed for re-instatement in service. The order for re- instatement is a matter of discretion with the Court. Considering various factors I am not inclined to order for re-instatement of the petitioner in service. I am, however, inclined to give termination benefits to the petitioner as provided in section 19 of the Act. Both the Members have opined accordingly.
7. The petitioner do get the following benefits from the 2nd party:
(1) 90 day's pay in lieu of notice ;
(2) 14 day's wages as compensation ;
(3) Unpaid wages, if any ; and
(4) Wages for earned leave, if any, due.
8. The 2nd party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the petitioner within one month from today.