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, which will be hereinafter ' referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was working under the second party as a cashier since 1966.
3. His monthly salary was Rs. 250'00 including deduction of Rs. 100 as food and lodging charges. On 13th July 1970 the second party by a verbal order terminated his services as having been not required. He was not given any termination benefits. While he went to collect his dues, he found that no such benefit was given to him. So he sent a grievance petition on 27-7-70. The second party replied on 1-8-70 drawing some charges against him apart from directing him to report for duty. As the first party was terrified, he did not join the duty. He however, replied on 6-8-70. Again the second party replied holding threats to him. He then submitted another reply saying that his services were terminated on 13-7-70 and he was not liable for any shortage in cash and the so- called charge was malicious. He has then been compelled to seek relief in Court.
4. The case of the second party is that the allegations of the first party are incorrect insomuch as the first party was drawing Rs. 120,00 per month. His services were never terminated on 13-7-70 as alleged by him. In fact, he was absenting unautho--risedly with effect from 13-7-70 without any valid reason. He was directed to resume his duties within 3 days from the date of receipt of the letter. He was also told that his grievance would be looked into. But even after this the first party did not report for duty and took an adamant attitude. He was again told to report for duty within 3 days. But he refused to resume his duties. He was directed to show cause asking him to explain his unauthorised absence. His reply was not found satisfactory as against this Hence he was directed to attend an enquiry on 4-9-70. The first party who was working with a guilty mind, did not attend the enquiry and the same was concluded ex parte. He was thereafter dismissed for misconduct, with effect from 14-9-70. He has bee given every facility to defend himself. He was working as Manager.
5. Points for determination.
(1) Whether- the first party, was illegally dismissed from service?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.-Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenient discussion.
7. During trial it transpires that the first party received the show---cause notice and the direction to join his duties within 3 days from the date of receipt of the letter. But it was admitted from the side of the first party 'that he did not join his duties. His explanation was that he apprehended that disciplinary action would follow as soon as he joined his duties. In view of this he took time, and never joined his duties again. There was an enquiry in his absence and in this enquiry which was concluded ex parte, he was-found guilty of misconduct and accordingly he was dismissed. As his voluntary absence from duty has been proved conclusively during the enquiry and as it appears from the facts and circumstances as per submissions in Court, there is no way of return for the first party now and he cannot be given any relief in this case. For an apprehended charge-sheet he cannot avoid his employer or his duty and it must be held that he should have surrendered to disciplinary rules of the establishment whatever might have in his mind. This does not allow him to any voluntary dereliction of duties and if he chose to such dereliction, he must suffer the consequences. The second party took a proper and legal step and as such there is no remedy in the present case for the first party.
8. I have consulted the written opinion of, the Members while arriving at this decision.