1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appli--cation under section 25 (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter 'referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was serving under the second party for the last 16 years as a Calender Mistry. His last pay was Rs. 154.00 per month. On 8-11-69 he was served with termination notice on the ground that the financial condition of the second party has become bad. But instead of making retrenchment his services 'were terminated without paying him; benefits as mentioned in law. Hence this application.
3. The second party filed written statement wherein they has challenged the allegations of the first party. They further state that the services of she first party had been terminated on the ground of financial inability of the Company and that it was a termination fn fact. It was further stated that 'the case is not maintainable since this Court could not try his case as stated in the provision of Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940.
4. Point for determination is whether the case is maintainable, and whether the first party is entitled to the benefits as claimed by him.
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION The second party has insisted on the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940. But it appears that this Court has assumed jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and that this is a complaint case regarding termination, retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay off, etc., and as such, the present Act being a Central Act as well as the subsequent Act has jurisdiction over the Bengal Co-operative - Societies Act. Farther, the subject matter as referred to in. the Bengal to- operative Societies Act is completely different from the present subject-matter referred to the Labour Court established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This is a complaint under the Act of 1965 which is also a subsequent Acct to the Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act of 1940. As such, the jurisdiction of this Court has been misconceived by the second party, and that this Court has jurisdiction to decide this case: Now the second party admittedly has failed to pass an order of retrenchment according to the Act: They have father' terminated the services of the first party without giving him the termination benefits, and it is also admitted that junior mistris have been retained in their posts whereas the first party who is senior to them has been retrenched from service. Thus it appears that gross injustice has been done to the aggrieved first party. The second party have also failed to comply with the provisions of law in so far as the second party did not reply, to the grievance petition of the first party, did not hold any enquiry and failed to give any relief to the first party. It appears that the second party have not complied with any relevant provision of law. They have not even given any so-called retrenchment benefits or termination benefits. So it appears that the order was mala fide illegal arid void ab initio, and as such; the impugned order is declared illegal and it is accordingly set aside.
6. The application is allowed on contest and the first party, according to his prayer, is re-instated to his former post with all back wages and the second party is directed to implement this order within 30 days from the date of this order.
7. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.