1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN): The petitioner Mohammad Abdul Jalil was a car driver on a monthly salary of Rs. 150.00 under the second party, Dawood Shipping Corporation Limited. The second party invented new devices and also now and then issued warnings to the petitioner.
2. Ultimately on 18-11-1969 the second party dismissed the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner lacked good conduct and-work and remained absent from duty without permission.
3. There was of course no charge-sheet against the petitioner who was not also given any opportunity to explain the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner submitted a grievance petition, but the second party refused to consider anything. So, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of an application under section (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 praying for re-instatement in service.
4. The second party contested the case by filing written objection, wherein the second party contended that the petitioner exhibited utter carelessness and negligence in driving and in spite of repeated warnings there was no improvement in the conduct and work of the petitioner. So, the Management had to dismiss the petitioner by the order dated 18-11-1969.
5. The question is whether the dismissal is illegal and invalid and whether the petitioner is entitled to any benefit in this case.
6. DECISION Admittedly there was Do charge-sheet against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct for which he has been dismissed. Section 18(1) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965, requires that the allegations against the worker are to be recorded in writing and he must be given full 3 days' time to explain the allegations. In the instant case there was no charge-sheet against the petitioner it is simply said in the order, dated 18-11-1969 that the petitioner left the vehicle for several hours without per-- mission on 17-11-1969. The offence alleged against the petitioner is said to have been committed on 17-11-1969 and he was outright dismissed on 18-11-1969. The legal formalities as enjoined in section 18 of the Standing Orders Act have not been observed at all. So, the order of dismissal is illegal and invalid and it offend against natural justice too. True it is that on some previous occasions the petitioner was given some warning, but that does not justify the dismissal in the fashion in which it is done without giving arty opportunity of being heard.
7. There is no doubt that the petitioner was a permanent employee under the second party. His dismissal being illegal and invalid, he is entitled to reliefs in this case. The petitioner has prayed for re-instatement. In his service. For various reasons I do not like to exercise my discretion in this regard and order for re-instatement. I, however, like to give full termination benefits to the petitioner, The learned Members also agree in their views with me. Member Mr. Sabur has opined for giving the petitioner wages from the date of dismissal up to the date of this order. On principles of equity I am not inclined to give this wages, when the petitioner is not being re-instated in his service.
8. The petitioner will get the following reliefs from the second party
(1) 90 days' pay in lieu of notice -Rs. 450.00;
(2) 14 days' salary as compensation -Rs. 7,0.00;
(3) Unpaid wages, if any, due; and
(4) Wages for earned leave, if any, due.
9. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the first party petitioner within one month from today.