1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN): This case arises out of an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. The petitioner Shahidul Hoque alleges that he was working as machineman under the 2nd party, Messrs Art Press since 25-5-67 and that he took leave from 26-7-69 to 5-8-69 but could not report to his duty on 6-8-69 for certain difficulties as alleged in his application. He, how over, reported on 11-8-69, but he was not allowed to work and charge-sheeted on 12-8-69 for absenting without leave for more thin 10 days from 26- 7-69. The petitioner alleges that he submitted explanation to the charge, but that was; not duly considered.
2. There was enquiry., on the charge and it was verbally intimated on 12-9-69 to the petitioner by the manager of the 2nd party that he had been dismissed from service. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a grievance petition as provided by law, but there was no reply to, that. So the petitioner has come before the Court with a prayer for re-instatement in service.
3. 2nd party contests the case by filling a written statement r wherein there is a denial to all the material allegations of the petitioner. It has been contended by the 2nd party that the petitioner absented for more than 10 days without leave and on enquiry he has been found guilty of misconduct and dismissed legally. It is further said by the 2nd party, that they did, not get any grievance petition of the petitioner. A question of maintainability of the application has also been raised by the 2nd party.
4. The points arising for our consideration in this case are as follows:
(1) Is the application of the petitioner maintainable?
(2) Is the dismissal of the petitioner legal and valid?
(3) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?
5. DECISION Points 1 to 3.-All the- 3 points are taken together for convenience of discussion.
6. There is no dispute that the petitioner was serving under the 2nd party. The petitioner was charge- sheeted for absence for over 10 days without leave and by an order dated 28-8-69 the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 30-8-69. There is nothing on the side of the 2nd party as to when the order of dismissal was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner avers that he was verbally intimated about the order of his dismissal on.12-9-69. The petitioner alleges that he submitted a grievance petition to the 2nd party.
7. Second party denies to have received any grievance petition. The petitioner submits a Peon Book.
8. The said Peon Book of the Union shows that on 15-9-69 the second party received two grievance petition, one being of petitioner Shabidul Hoque. I have scrutinised the relevant entries in the Peon Book and I have no manner of doubt that they are genuine. I therefore reject the contention of the 2nd party that they received only one grievance petition on 15-9-69 and did not get the grievance petition of the petitioner. Accordingly on the materials before me it is held that the petitioner knew about his dismissal order on 12-9-69 and that he submitted grievance petition to the 2nd party on 15-9-69. there is no doubt that there was no reply to the grie--vance petition. The petitioner filed this case on 16-10-69. There is thus nothing against the maintainability of the application of the petitioner. Now the question is whether the order of dismissal of the petition is legal and valid.
9. The charge against the petitioner is for absenting without leave or permission for over 10 days from 26-7-69. Charge-sheet shows that the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within 72 hours. This is in violation of provision of Law, for the petitioner should get full 3 days' time to submit his explanation. The petitioner alleges that he took leave from 26-7-69 to 3-8-6 to see his ailing father and under certain circumstances he could not send telegram for extension of his leave thereafter. The enquiry report also shows that he stated before the enquiry officer that he took leave from the Manager who granted leave verbally. The Manager has not denied this before the Enquiry Officer who did not also totally disbelieve this version of the petitioner and poses a question as why the petitioner did not report to duty on 2nd August 1969. One witness in the enquiry has said that the petitioner might have taken leave verbally. The fact remains that the petitioner reported for duty on 11-8-69. The evidence and circumstances do not repeat that the petitioner was absent for over 10 days without leave. So on facts found the charge does not appear to have been proved against the petitioner. I, there--fore, find that the dismissal of the petitioner is not legal and valid.
10. Now I shall pass on to consider what benefits, if any, the peti--tioner is entitled to.
11. The petitioner has prayed for re-instatement in service. For apparent reasons I am not Inclined to order for re-instatement in service. I am, however, inclined to give termination benefits to the petitioner. That is also the view of one of the learned members I may observe that I am not in agreement with the view of the learned member who opines that the petitioner has been justly dismissed.
12. The petitioner accordingly held to be entitled to the follow--ing benefits from the 2nd party;
(1) 90 days' wages in lieu of notice;
(2) 28 days' wages as compensation;
(3) Unpaid wages up to 12-9-69; and
(4) Wages for earned leave, if any, due ; The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the petitioner within one month from to-day.