1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAI7). This is an applica--tion under section 25(l)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965.
2. Bazal Ahmed, driver, first party, states that he entered into the service of the second party in the year 1951 on a monthly pay of Rs. 60.00 plus food, boarding, etc., and after 3 years, say 1954 he was regularly employed under the second party and since his employment his pay was raised up to Rs.
3. 205'00 till his so-called retrenchment on 6-12-68. Hence, he made this applica--tion after serving grievance petition upon the second party, which was no': replied to. His present prayer is for re- instatement or termination benefits, as the case may be.
4. The second party at first made a prayer for adjournment on the ground of illness of Mr. Jams Ahmed, the Attorney of the Second Party, which wag rejected. Then they argued the case. Witness Bazal Ahmed examined and cross-examined.
5. The first party could not remember his pay when tie came to the regular establishment. He could not also give the correct date and time when he entered in the employment and regular service; or when his services were taken in the regular establishment in 1954.
6. Naturally, the papers are in the custody of the second party. The second party has not filed any written statement or objection and any document, so as to prove or disprove the claims of the first party. There had been some suggestions by the lawyer for the second party in this connection, but these suggestions are not borne out by documentary evidence. Hence, the position is that Bazal Ahmed claimed his pay as Rs. 205.00 per month. He further stated that there was another driver employed when he was retrenched from the employment of the second party on the ground of redundancy. On the principle of retrenchment "Last in-first out", it was the turn of the other driver who entered in the employment only 4/5 years back and he should have been retrenched. But it appears that the second party did not follow the principle and procedure and hence, this so-called retrenchment cannot be called a retrenchment: It is further submitted by the first party that the second party still has a driver in their establishment.
7. In this connection, the learned Advocate for the first party cited the rulings reported in PLD 1967 Dacca 724.
8. Further it has been alleged and admitted that no retrench--ment notice was served upon the Inspector under section 12 of the Standing Orders Act. 1965. The second party did not comply with the provisions of section 25 in giving a reply to the grievance petition of the first party. . For all these reasons, it appears that the second party did no comply with the provisions of Standing Orders 'Act and that according to the law, the so-called retrenchment was a termination simpliciter.
9. Hence, the first party is entitled to get the termination benefits. It is, therefore ORDERED That the first party do get termination benefits as follows :-
(1) 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 205'00 .per month amounting to Rs. 615'00;
(2) 14 days' wages as compensation for each completed year of service, or part thereof over six months for 14 years since 1955; and _
(3) Unpaid leave salary, if any.
10. The amount of award should be deposited in Court within 30 days from this date in favour of the first party The learned Member Mr. M. H. Meerza concurred with me in the above findings.