1. MD. NURUL 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 a permanent worker under the second party since five years back and was on a monthly salary of Rs. 140.00. He was at first illegally re--trenched, but later re-instated in obedience to Labour Court's decision. By a letter dated 24-4-1969, as a machineman his pay was decreased from Rs. 140 to Rs.
110. So he complained to the Martial Law Administrator who directed the employer to give him his full pay. The second party however, illegally terminated his services by a letter dated 15-5-1969 which he received on 27-5-1969. He was given 3 months' notice that is, his services would terminate from 15-8-1969 after the expiry of three months: He sent his grievance petition on 6-6-1969 by registered post to the second party who received the same.
3. But the first party got no reply. His prayer was to direct the second party to re-instate him to his former post with all back wages.
4. The case of the second party is that the case of the first party is not maintainable since it is a normal termination of service by giving 3 months' notice and that the application of the first party under section 25 of the Act is not maintainable.
5. Point for determination is whether the order of termination of the services of the first party is legal and valid?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case as given by the two parties that they were not pulling on well with each other, After re-instatement the first party was given 3 months' notice for termination of service and accordingly his services were terminated. It appears from the proviso to section 25(1)(6) that an employer had a right to terminate the service of any of his worker under section 19 by giving him termination benefits. In the present cast due to bad relationship between them which is quite clear on the fact of facts, the Management has terminated the services of the first party by giving him due notice. If there is any due, the first party can claim that.
7. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the case be dismissed do contest as not maintainable, and I further order that in pursuance of the order of termination of services of the first party, all other dues of the first party should be cleared which should have no reference in the Court as is the present case the first party has made a prayer against his notice for termination of the services.
8. Members have been consulted in giving my decision above.