1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter called as Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a Binder in the establishment of the second party in 1966 and his last pay was Rs. 100.00 per month. His services were orally dispensed with without any notice arbitrarily and illegally by the second party. He sent a grievance petition on 13- 4-1970 by registered post with A/D which was received by the second party on 15-4-1970, but there was no reply. The second party issued a show-cause notice upon the first party on 8-5-1970. The first party gave an explanation to this motivated notice. As the second party is not at all eager to fulfil the demand of the first party, he has instituted this case for getting all legal benefits as per law: - The second party has contested the case by filing a written statement in which, among other things, it has been pleaded that the case was false, frivolous, vexatious and misconceived and that it was not maintainable in the eye of law. The first party has no grievance. In the grievance petition the first party has alleged verbal termination of services. The second party denied such verbal termination by their notice dated 2-5-1970 and directed him to join his duties, but to no effect. He was then dismissed by the second party on 2-7-1970 by a letter which was duly sent to him by registered post and was received by him He did not submit any grievance petition against this dismissal.
3. It was further stated that the first party, out of greed of illegal gain has made this frivolous claim for termination benefit though his services were not terminated. He was directed to join his duties by two notices dated 2-5-1970 and 25-5-1970. But he did not join his duties. Without intimation or permission he started absenting from duty with. effect from 4-4-1970 and sent, a so-called petition by post on 13-4-1970 making the fabricated story of verbal termination of services from 1-4-1970 whereas he was present up to 3-4-1970. He was charge-sheeted for unauthorised absence and was told to submit his explanation. He was also directed to join his duties. He submitted explana-- tion on 8-5-1970 but did not join his duties. As his explanation was found unsatisfactory, there was an enquiry into the charges on 30-6-1970 after giving him prior notice on 25-5-1970 and asking him to attend the said enquiry. He was also asked to join his duties in that letter. But he neither attended the enquiry nor joined his duty. So the enquiry was concluded ex parte. As his misconduct has been proved in the enquiry, he was dismissed by a letter dated 2-7-1970. The first party has absolutely no case and his case should be dismissed with costs.
4. Points for determination in the present case are: (') Whether there was any verbal termination of services of the first party on 1-4-1970 and whether the order of dismissal passed upon the first party by the second party on 2-7-1970 is legal and valid?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Point No. 1-The second party has produced all the papers relating to the enquiry. It appears from these papers that the first party was directed to join his duties by two letters dated 2-5-1970 and 25-5-1970. But it is admitted that he never joined his duties again. Though he was told to attend the enquiry, he did not do so and the enquiry had to be con--cluded ex parte by the enquiring officer who, in his report, stated that he sent prior notice to the first party and also waited for him at the time of enquiry for about an hour. Two prosecu--tion witnesses were examined by the enquiring officer. It transpires from their evidence that the first party all of a sudden started absenting from his duties without any leave petition or permission since 4-4-1970. The second party was expecting his return from unauthorised absence. But this did not happen. On the other hand; they received grievance petition from the first party and also two others who also remained absent similarly.
6. There were some false and frivolous allegations in this grievance petition. It has been pleaded by the second party that actuated by greed of illegal gain these persons sent the so-called grievance petitions making out false cases of termination of services. This fact would be clear when it appears that though the first party was directed at least twice to join his duties, he did not join and preferred to remain away from the duty under the second party. It was further found that they were indulging in double employment even before their such absentism. In the facts and circumstances of the case the second party was compelled to hold an enquiry against the first party and the other two workers after charge-sheeting them. They caused dislocation of work of the second party and consequent financial loss. P. W. 1 was the Managing Partner and P. W. 2 was the Manager of the second party and they both corroborated each other regarding the unauthorised absence of the first party, his failure to turn up on intimation to resume duties. The fact of his absence during the enquiry was also quite clear. The onus of proving that his services were terminated verbally on 1-4-1970 was squarely on the shoulder of the first party. But he has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his case. On the other hand, it has been conclusively proved that he' remained away from his work without any permission, petition and intimation. He also did not turn up at the time of enquiry. In the facts and circumstances it appears that the order of dismissal passed by the second party in respect of the first party's services is quite legal and valid and that the contention of the first party is disproved.
7. Point No. 2: In view of my above findings the first party is not entitled to any relief whatsoever as claimed by him.
8. The Members on being consulted have given their written opinion for dismissing this application.