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, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The ease of the first party was that he was a permanent worker as Lineman working under the second party since 1954 at a daily wage of Rs. 2.00. However, the second party verbally terminated his services on 9-6-69 in violation of the provisions of the Act who did not pay him any termination benefits. The first party sent a grievance notice on 14-6-69. The second party received the same but did not reply. Hence this case with a prayer for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages.
3. The second party did not file any written statement but they entered into appearance and examined one witness on their side. The first party also examined himself. The case of the second party; as it appears from the trend of cross-examination and their evidence is that the first party voluntarily left his service and did not turn up.
4. Point for determination in the present case is whether the services of the first party were terminated without giving him his legal dues.
5. FIFDINGS AND DECISION It appears that the first party was engaged under the second party since 1954 at a very meagre pay. He was getting only R s. 2.00 per day. The first party's case is that he was driven cut by Mr. Habibur Rahman and that act was endorsed by the Manager Mr. Harun and when be later approached the owner Mr. Ayub Mia, he also confirmed the said act of his sub--ordinates. The very meagre wage paid to the first party clearly shows that be was very shabily treated by the second party and the act of sudden termination of his services orally and the subseuqent treatment by the employer even by refusing him his legal dues is just culmination of that kind of treatment. The first party examining himself clearly established his case to this effect and nothing contradictory could be elicited from his examina--tion. The only clerk Abdul Khaleque who was examined by the second party was not a clerk of the establishment where the first party worked. The first party's case is that he was driven out at the instance, of the Manager by the clerk. Habibur-Rahman who, however, was not produced in Court. On the other hand, another clerk Abdul Khaleque was examined: This clerk submitted that he was getting unusual increments. He started at Rs. 80.00 per month in 1965 and at the moment he was, getting Rs. 225.00 per month. He said that the clerks have varying scales of Rs. 80.00, Rs. 90.00, Rs. 125.00, etc., and the rates of annual increments are Rs.
6. 10.00, Rs. 15.00, Rs. 25.00, ate., were there. As he started at the lowest grade, his increment could be only Rs. 10.00, or Rs. 15.00. But in spite of that he was getting Rs. 225.00. He said that he hailed from the same village as the Manager of the factory. He admitted that he was from the Head Office and that Habibur Rahman was the relevant clerk, and he was not there at the time of expulsion of the first party. He admitted that Habibur Rahman did not send any written report.
7. Now it has been claimed by the second party that they did not receive any grievance petition. As against this, the first party submitted a copy of the grievance petition with a postal receipt of the post office. This receipt shows that it was, addressed to the Deputy Sub-Martial Law Administrator and that no receipt showing sending any letters to the second party employer could be produced by the first party. So it cannot be said that any grievance petition was sent to the second party. As no grievance petition was sent to the second party, the present application becomes automatically invalid arid non-maintainable. Grievance petition is a mandatory provision of law and in the absence of, any valid grievance petition served upon the employer no petition to this Court is maintainable under section 5 (1) (b) of the Act.
8. I have duly taken into consideration the written opinion of the Members while giving my above decision.