1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-Kabir Ahmed is the petitioner. He has filed this case under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 alleging that he was in service of the second party, Messrs Ibrahim Match Works for about 9 years on daily wages of Rs. 4.81. It is further alleged that he was illegally dismissed from service on 25-9-69. He then submitted a grievance petition on 28-9-1969, but to no effect. So, the petitioner now prays for being re-instated in his service.
2. The second party contests the case by filing a written state--ment. It is contended that the petitioner is in the habit of absenting from duty without leave or permission. He was charged for misconduct on that ground and legally dismissed.
3. We have got to consider whether the order of dismissal of the petitioner is legal and valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this case.
4. DECISION It appears that the petitioner Kabir Ahmed was charge-sheeted or 23-9-69 for leaving office at about 12-00 on 20-9-69 and for absenting on 22-9-69. He was asked to show cause within 25-9-
69. This is against the mandatory provisions of law, for the law provides full 3 days time for submission of explanation by the worker. Kabir Ahmed, however, submitted his explanation. But without holding any proper enquiry an order was passed on 25-9-69 dismissing the petitioner with effect from 20-9-69. It may be mentioned that before starting the enquiry, the petitioner was suspended by the order dated 23-9-69. The whole proceeding militates against the provisions of law, the petitioner was not given the requisite time for submitting his explanation, he was not heard in person, no enquiry officer was appointed and actually there was no enquiry. After the grievance petition too there was no enquiry in the' matter and the petitioner was not given any chance of being heard. The petitioner, it may be mentioned, is an illiterate person. The second party has filed some leave applications showing to have been submitted by the petitioner. They contained the signatures of the petitioner in Bengali and English. It is doubtful whether the petitioner, who is an illiterate man has signed these. All the leave applications are of the year 1969. Be that as it may, even if the petitioner is in the habit of applying for leave now and then, the dismissal of the petitioner being illegal and invalid as pointed out above, he is entitled to relief in this case.
5. The petitioner has prayed for re-instatement in his service.
6. I do not, however, like to thrust the petitioner on the unwilling employer.
7. Both the Members have suggested for giving termination benefits and I agree with them.
8. The petitioner is a daily-rated worker. Therefore, he will get 45 days' wages in lieu of notice.
9. The petitioner do get the following reliefs from the second party :-
(1) Wages for 45 days in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 4.81 per day ;
(2) Wages for 126 days as compensation ;
(3) Wages for earned leave, if any, due ; and
(4) Unpaid wages minus the subsistence allowance, if any paid.
10. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the first party petitioner within one month from today.