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 referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was working as a permanent worker under the second party for the last 3 years gild was drawing the salary at the rate of Rs. 175.00 per month, I The second party issued a telegram on 18-1-1961 suspending him until further orders. Thereafter the petitioner made several correspondences with the second party for giving a decision in his case and he ultimately sent a grievance petition under registered post on 17-10-1969. But his grievance was not redressed.
3. The second party entered into appearance in which they stated that the application was time- barred and that the case is not maintainable as his grievance arose out of the order of suspension passed in 1967 whereas the end of 1969 filed the case only. Hence the petition should be dismissed.
4. Now the petitioner has submitted in this case that he was suspended and thereafter he 'remained on a hope that his case would be decided and tie would be taken in. But no decision came from the second party and he was not even paid during the suspension period. It is stated that under section 18(2) of the Act a worker cannot be suspended beyond 60 days and that in the present case the second party has violated this provision of law and even during the period of suspension they have not paid him subsistence allowance equivalent to half of his average wages including Dearness Allowance as is provided under the law. This fact is admitted. The second party stated that the first party did not submit any grievance petition after the expiry of 60 days. But we must find here that suspension is not a substantive punishment and it is only a process to some punishment such as discharge and dismissal. But unfortunately the second party has failed to take any decision in the matter. They have no paper in support of their case. The poor worker also did not take any action but only hoped that some action would be taken by the second a party. So in accordance with the provisions of law this petition is not time-barred. On the other hand, the second party has resorted to gross illegality by keeping him under suspension for more than 60 days. When the second party suspended the first party they were duty bound to take a final decision in accordance with the provisions of law. Though their act was illegal, they are bound to give a final decision in the matter and the worker had to wait till such a decision is given or his patience is worn out. Now his patience had worn out as more than 3 years elapsed and he has sent his grievance petition, which was not replied to, and he came to the Court. In that sense, until a final decision is given in the case of a worker, his case for coning to the Labour Court does not die automatically. Hi grievance in the present case is against the entire proceeding and not against the suspension only as suspension is not a substantive, punishment as in case he is re-instated by the second party after a domestic enquiry he should be given full wages for the period of suspension even. Suspension is just a step to a proceeding, which might culminate in discharge or dismissal of a worker. However, suspension under section 17(2) of the Act may be passed as a matter of compromised punishment, but that suspen--sion must be passed after a decision and that suspension in any case does not exceed 7 days. The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly indicate that here suspension was trot done as n measure of punishment after a decision has been taken in his case. So it is clear that the second party's stand is untenable in the eye of law. The worker has suffered a lot of injustice due to the failings of the second party in all respects in this proceeding. As the suspension has no ended in any punishment or decision by the second party, the maximum period of suspension being 60 days, in the present case, should be treated as period of active duty and the first party must be paid full wages for this period and for the rest of the period as I find there was laches also on the part of the first party to take early step bringing the case in Court, I feel that he is not entitled to any wages for the period. However, as no guilt has been established against trim, he has a genuine case for re-- instatement to his former post.
5. In the result, the application succeeds, and it is directed that the second party should re-instate the first party to his former post within 15 (fifteen) days of passing this order and also pay him full wages for the first 60 days since the date of his suspen--sion. For the rest of the period the first party will not be paid any wages. The second party must report compliance to the Court by calculating and depositing the amount of wages payable to the first party in this Court within 15 days.
6. Opinions of the Members have been consulted in giving my above decision.