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, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a Peon and later was promoted an office Assistant under the second party. His date of appointment was 29-4-64. They formed a Trade Union and submitted a charter of demands on 20-4-70 for which he incurred the wrath of the Management headed by the Secretary in East Pakistan. He was appointed and posted to the Dacca Office all along. Thereafter he was constantly threatened by the said Secretary of the second party and one day, on 2-5-70, the Office keys were taken away from him and he was driven out. He was suspended on 2-6-70 and was given a charge-sheet on 3-6-70 allowing him time to explain his conduct for damaging the business of the company by adverse propaganda, by 5-6-
70. He explained denying tile allegations. But he was dismissed without any further enquiry, notice, etc. on 5-6-70. He sent a grievance petition and later preferred this application before this Court.
3. The second party's case is that the allegations brought b; the first party are false and that he was treated well until be started damaging the business of the Company by adverse propaganda. The Company received many complaints from different persons including one Mr. Kalimuddin, and therefore, the Company was constrained to take him to task and dispense with his services.
4. Points for determination:
(1) Whether the first -:arty was illegally dismissed from his service?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.-During hearing of the case it transpired that the first party was given only 2 days' time to explain and after he explained his conduct denying the allegations he was dismissed forthwith by the second party. He was not given any other opportunity to defend himself. There was no enquiry at all. Those complainants who brought complaints against the first party were not even examined. On the other hand, it appears that the services of the first party which were once found very satisfactory by the second party, were terminated all of a sudden and he was stigmatised for having worked against the interest of the second party by damaging its business with malpropaganda. In the face of it this allegation should have been enquired into since the company was supplying the bread of the first party. The first party alleged in the Court that he is without any job since his dismissal. On the other hand, after submission of the charter of demands and subsequent development there was no denial from the second party. This is a case of misunderstanding as it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case. So the matter has to be given it due appraisal. As the first party was dismissed without holding any enquiry and without giving him due opportunity to defend his position, the action of the second party has to be termed as illegal and improper.
6. In view of this consideration the second party is found to have acted illegally and the first party should get the relief prayed for.
7. It is accordingly ordered that the case be allowed on contest, and the second party be d6rected to re-instate the first party to his former post with all back wages and other legal dues within 30 days from the date of this order.
8. I have consulted the written opinion of Member Mr. S. A. Haleem who is present in the Court and agreed with my decision above.