1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). This case arises out of an application under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 filed by, petitioner Mafizur Rahman. His case is that he was in service of the second party as Darwan. On 27-2-1969 in the morning when he attended his duty he found the lock of the door of the office broken. He pointed out this to the Manager of the second party in presence of Darwan Gulfaraz Khan who was on duty in the night.
2. Any way both the petitioner and Gulfaraz were suspended. The petitioner submitted explanation, but there was no reply to that. The petitioner then sent two registered letters requesting the second party to withdraw the suspension order. Ultimately the second party informed the petitioner by the letter, dated 14-7-1969 that he had been dismissed from service with effect from 24-3-1969. This order of dismissal is in violation of mandatory provisions of law and illegal. The petitioner submitted grievance petition, dated 24-7-1969 and got reply to that on 20-8-1969. The petitioner now prays for re-instatement in his job with all back wages.
3. Second party contests the case by filing written objection wherein the allegations of the petitioner are mainly denied and it is contended by the 2nd party that locks of some doors of the office of the 2nd party were broken during duty hours of the petitioner and some properties were missing. The petitioner was rightly charge-sheeted and he has been legally dismissed from service.
4. The point for our consideration is whether the dismissal of the petitioner is valid and proper and if not, what relief of petitioner is entitled to?
5. The charge-sheet against the petitioner shows that during his duty hours door locks of some office rooms were found broken and that properties were missing and the petitioner has been charged for misconduct and negligence of duty. Negligent of duty is no misconduct, but habitual negligence of duty comes within the definition of misconduct. The petitioner had not been given full 3 days' time for explanation. On the there hand has been asked to submit explanation within 3 days. This militates against the mandatory provision of law. Admittedly there was no proper enquiry on the charge-sheet and no enquiry report has been submitted by the second party. The allegation of non-availability of the address of the petitioner cannot believe. Any way as no enquiry was there worth the name, end of natural justice have no met in his case. The dismissal of the petitioner in these circumstances is invalid and improper.
6. The petitioner has prayed re-instatement. In agreement the learned Advocate for the' petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner is agreeable to accept termination benefits. Order for re- instatement is discretionary with the Court. Both the Member C have suggested for giving the petitioner full termination benefits. Instead of thrusting the petitioner on the 2nd party, I am inclined to give termination benefits to the petitioner: The petitioner do - get termination benefits from the 2nd party as follows:
(1) 3 months' pay in lieu of notice:
(2) Wages for 98 days as compensation;
(3) Salary for earned leave, if any, due; ('4) Full wages for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance, if paid; and
(5) Back wages up to this day.
7. The second party do pay the amounts indicated above within 30 days from today to the 1st party petitioner.