1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. The petitioner Nader Hossain alleges that he was a Darwan under the 2nd party Messrs Eastern Chemical Industries Ltd., on a monthly salary of Rs.
110. On 29-10-69 at 7 p.m. he was rebuked by the manager of the second party for alleged neglect of duty and asked the petitioner to go out of office and verbally dismissed him. On being such dismissed from service the petitioner submitted a grievance petition to which the second party gave a reply denying the allegations made by the petitioner and also by a separate letter charged the petitioner for absence of over 10 days without leave. The petitioner alleges that these are all motivated. The petitioner has now come before the Court for reliefs as may be available.
2. The second party contests the case by filing a written statement in which while denying the material allegation of the petitioner they contest, inter alia, that on 29-10-69 Nader Hossain was found sleeping during duty hour and he was rebuked and cautioned. Thereafter Nader Hossain absented from office for over 10 days without leave and he was proceeded against for that and ultimately dismissed from service with effect from 7-12-69.
3. The questions that arise for our consideration is whether the petitioner was dismissed on 29-10-69 as alleged by the petitioner and whether the petitioner is-entitled to any relief in this case.
4. Certain facts, sequence of events and conducts of the parties help us in the discovery of the truth relating to the removal of the petitioner from service. According to the allegation of the petitioner he was rebuked in the afternoon of 29-10-69 and asked to go out of office stating that he had been dismissed from service. Soon after that the petitioner submitted a grievance petition which was posted on 31-10-69. Even after receipt of the grievance petition the second party did not quickly respond stating that he had not been dismissed', but waited for few days and then intimated by a letter dated 11-11-69 that he was absenting from office without leave and asked him to appear on 18- 11-69 for enquiry. This letter of charge was received by the petitioner on 22-11-69. It is not however clear when this letter was pasted. A sort of an ex parte enquiry was held on 27-11-69.
5. Curiously enough there is nothing in the enquiry about the incident on 29-10-69. Enquiry seems to be on the alleged absence without leave. Even then the charge-sheet is defective and it does not confirm to the provisions of law. Be that as it may the sequence of events and the conduct of the parties reveal that the petitioner is prompt in his actions while the 2nd party counted days to make out a case of absence for over 10 days. The second party could immediately on receipt of the grievance petition say that the petitioner had not been dismissed as alleged by him. Then again the petitioner filed the present case on 3-12-69 and he is shown to have been dismissed with effect from 7-12-69.
6. Considering the entire circumstances together with the oral evidence of the petitioner, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner was verbally dismissed from service on 29-10-69 a alleged by him. There is no dispute that the petitioner is in service for about four years and he was a permanent worker. This sort of verbal dismissal without, conforming to provision of law is absolutely illegal. In the instant case I propose to give full termination benefits to the petitioner instead of an order for re-instatement. Both the members also express the same view.
7. The petitioner do get from the second party :-
(a) 3 months' wages in lieu of notice ;
(b) Wages for 56 days as compensation ;
(c) Wages for unavailed earned leave, if due ;
(d) Wages for 29 days for the month of October, 1969.
8. 2nd party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the petitioner within one month from today.