1. MD. NURAL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(6) 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 appointed as a compositor in September 1956 and his last pay was Rs. 130'00 per month. His services were orally dispensed with illegally. He served a grievance notice on 13-4-1970 by registered post. On receiving the same the second party issued a show-cause notice on 8-5-1970. An explanation was given by the first party in time. The show- cause notice is motivated. His case is that he is entitled to all benefits according to law.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement in which it was stated, inter alia, that case is false, frivolous and vexatious and that there was no cause of grievance. The first party's case is vague as he did not mention when his services were terminated. The second party redressed the grievance of the first party by their letter dated 2-5-1970 in which the second party directed the first party to join his duties. gut in spite of that he did not join his duties wilfully. The present application has been filed with dishonest motive and illegal gain. The first party already took double employment and was serving in the "Purba Desh" He very abruptly started absenting without intimation from 3rd April 1970 and for this unauthorised absence due to his employment under another Company the second party suffered. With dishonest intention he sent grievance petition with got-up story of verbal termination. He was directed to show cause for his unauthorised absence and was directed to join to his duties which he failed. His explanation was found unsatisfactory. He also did not attend the enquiry. Hence he was dismissed after an enquiry, on 2-7-1970. His petition should be dismissed with cost.
4. Points for determination:
(1) Whether the first party's services were orally terminated?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2. It is correct to say that the first party's petition is vague regarding the date of termination of his services. He was directed to resume his duties by Exh.
1. But admittedly the first party failed to join his duties. He was also engaged in double employment from before for gain. The first party's explanation was not found satisfactory. He also did not attend the enquiry and hence it had to be completed ex parte. He was later dismissed for misconduct. The first party was examined as P. W. 1, so was examined another witness Ashraf Ali Khan. The second party examined only one witness. The first party gave a case that his services were terminated by Mr. Lutfar Rahman Khan verbally. He did not give the date on which they were called by Lutfar Rahman Khan. Another witness Ashraf was also equally affected. He admitted that he was employed in "Purba Desh" on 4th or 5th April 1970 and that he was serving in "Purba Desh" from before. He failed to mention any hitch over the strike of the Press Workers. He said that he was getting Rs. 119'00 from "Purba Desh".
6. Though he claimed that he was paid Rs, 130'001 under the second party, he did not apply for re- instatement. That shows the hollowness of his claim. He admitted that he did not join his duties nor did he attend the enquiry. In such circumstances, he is not entitled to any benefits as claimed in his application, his case is vague and his bona fides are seriously challenged and found doubtful.
7. Similar is the condition of other witness who was a co-worker and wag treated similarly. This witness even took an amount from the other party. But he said that the receipt was extorted from him. He was also dismissed by the second party. D. W. 1, Lutfar Rahman Khan stated the second party's case. He said that the first party took employment under "Purba Desh" from before and as he had a very weak case, he did not turn up to join his duties or for the enquiry. Another person who had a similar case and who was also dismissed by the second party filed Complaint Case No. 245 of 1970. In that case also it has been found by this Court that the said person stayed away from his work without any petition, permission and did not turn up at the enquiry. The cases are exactly similar and no distinction can be made between them.
8. In view of the above findings it appears that the first party has been properly dismissed according to law. Hence this application is dismissed on contest.
9. The written opinion of the members have been considered and it was found in agreement with my decision above.