1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an applica--tion under section 25(1)(6) 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 a permanent worker under the second party since his employment on 1-1-69 at a monthly salary of Rs. 300. On 29-10-69 the proprietor of the second party firm all on a sudden most arbitrarily dispensed with his services without giving him any compensation, notice or notice pay, etc., and without complying with the legal formali--ties as enshrined in the law. He further submitted that his arrear wages for the last 4 months also remained unpaid. He sent a grievance petition on 5-11-69 under certificate of posting, but he received no reply. Thereafter he has filed this case for remedy.
3. The second party entered into appearance but did not file any written statement. Two witnesses were px4nuued from each side. The case of the second party, as it appears from the evidence of that party and cross-examination of the first party's witnesses is that the first party was never an employee working under the second party at any time, and that the lust party Noor Mohammad who is a man from the Punjab, married in the same village as that of the owner of the second party and that they were on visiting terms only. The second party owner was an employee under M/s. Abdul Awal of Mogultuly till 14-4-69 when he started his own firm at Bangsal for painting glass. He set up a beating device there with the help of others and being jealous the first party had first sent a notice to the Labour Directorate after which his shop was inspected and then he runs into further trouble when he filed this false case.. According to the second party this case is false and liable to be dismissed.
4. Points for determination
(1) Whether the first party was a permanent worker under the second party since his alleged employment on 1-1-69.
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND- DECISION Both the points are dealt with together for the sake of convenient discussion.
6. In the present case the key-point of peculiarity is that the parties took their stand opposite to each other: The first party stated that he was a permanent worker under the second party firm since 1-1- 69 and till he was ousted from the firm arbitrarily and summarily on 29-1.0-69 and that he did not get even 4 months' arrear wages which remained unpaid. As against this the second party firm owner Mr. Fate Yunus claimed that though Noor Mohammad married in the same village and they were at visiting terms he never took the services of the first party and that only being jealous the first party has filed this false case with the Labour Directorate and presently in this Court out of greed. This being the position, this Court examined two witnesses from each side.
7. The first party Noor Muhammad claimed, as, usual, that he was employed under the second party since 1--69 and that he started the heating device in the firm of Fate Yunus, and that he was not even paid the wages for the last 4 months at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month. He was a man from Punjab and that his intention was to go there with the collected amount of these 4 months. During this period his Bhaira (a relation) named Md. Ibrahim supported him financially but suddenly on 29-10-69. Fate Yunus terminated his services without even paying him his arrear dues, notice pay, compensation, etc. He preferred a grievance,, petition on 5-1169 sent under certificate of posting but to no effect. He did not receive any reply. He further submitted that the second party did not maintain any attendance register or acquittance roll, etc. His other witness Habibur Rahman was also an employee under the second party. At the time of deposition he was working in Purabi Glass Factory. He also worked under the second party. He corroborat--ed the version of the first party in rote. But he was not definite about the payment of wages at different times. He said that small payments used to be made to the first party by Fare Yunus. He also maintained that before his entrance into the firm of the second party Noor Mohammad was working there, from before. As against this, Fate Yunus, the owner of the second party firm maintained that he was working under M/s. Abdul Awal & Co. of Mogultully as a worker till 14-4-69 when he started his own firm. This was a firm to paint glasses with a heating device. There used to be painters amongst whom there were children as well as adults whereas Noor Mohammad and his witness deposed that there were 10/ 11 persons there. He (the second party owner) says that there were 4/5 persons including children. His case is that the first party became jealous and sent information to the Labour Directorate who carried on an inspection in his factory. He did not receive any notice from the Labour Inspector on this account. The witness Fate Yunus, however, stated that at the time of setting up of his heating device he was helped by a Punjabi whose name he did not remember. This casts doubt into the version of the second party. In fact, we have found that Noor Muhammad is a Punjabi and it is his positive case that it was he who set up .a heating device and therefore, the contention of the second party that the name of the Punjabi who helped him in setting up the heating device is not remembered by him does not lead to any positive point and it, on the other hand, establishes the contention of the first party that it was he who helped him in setting up the device.
8. The next point is that witness No. 2 of the second party who is a cousin of the second party owner Fate Yunus, merely admitted in Court that he came to depose in favour of the second party. He at first said that he did not go to the shop of Fate Yunus. But later he said that he visited the said shop.
9. On confrontation of the first party he denied to. have been entertained by the second party while paying the visit. In any case, it appears that his case is trained since he is a relation' of the second party and the second party also, worked in their firm.
10. The other points which came up promptly are that the firm of Fate Yunus was once inspected by the Labour Inspector and it has been admitted by both the parties that this inspection was conducted at the instance of the first party. Had there been no case between the parties there could not have been any point of enmity and, any such early inspection could not have been prompted. Though it was suggested by the second party that the second, party had a heating device somewhere in spite of the admission that the first party and the second party were on visiting term freely, and they moved together, the second party could not leg the particular place where the so-called heating device of the second party is installed. The second arty admitted in Court that he has got his trade licence, but he ailed to produce the same. He, therefore, comes within the mischief of section .114, Example G of the Evidence Act by which an adverse presumption has to be deduced against him. This is, if he had produced the licence it could have been possibly found that he started the firm since 1-1-69 and not 14-4-69 as claimed by him. B , however, admitted that he did not produce his register to tae Labour Inspector on 22-11-69 but he produced the same on 15-12-69 which was the second occasion of visit of the said Inspector. The other improbable point in his evidence is that he claimed that he devised the heating device within 2/3 hours. His version was challenged. At least one or two days is required to devise a heating device. .To us the version of the first party appears to be more probable.
11. It has been claimed by the second party that there was no proper service of the grievance petition since it was served under certificate of posting. It was claimed that there was no proper service if a notice was served without registered post. But even in case of registered post if is not ensured that the relevant notice was put inside an envelop. In the present case the first party has produced the receipt of certificate of posting. It is further found that he informed the Labour Directorate also indicates that the grievance petition was duly served upon the second party.
12. Thus in short it appears that the probability and improbability, the facts and circumstances of the case of the first party as placed in the gist point out that the first party was a worker employed under the second party since 1-1-69 and till the termination of his services on 29-10-69. It was also found that his monthly pay was Rs. 300.00 and that he was not paid the wages of last 4 months, which remained with the second party Fate Yunus. The very fact that Noor Mohammad, the first patty became desperate against the second party as he informed the Labour Directorate, approached the Labour Court and desperately pleaded his case here also indicate that his case could not but be proved. Without some element of truth a man from such a distance as Noor Mohammad is from West Pakistan, could not put up a case like this. On the other hand, the case of the second party appears to be improbable contradictory and unbelievable. So the case of the first party appears to have been proved. He is therefore, entitled to the relief prayed for.
13. The application is therefore, decided in favour of the first party on contest and it is ordered that the following termination benefits and other legal dues be given to the first party: Rs.
(i) 90 days notice pay at the rate of Rs. 300.00900.00 per month.
(ii) Compensation for 14 days at the rate140.00 of Rs. 300.00 per month.
(Iii) Arrear salaries for 4 months at the1,200.00 rate of Rs. 300.00 per month.
14. Total2,240.00 The second party is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs. 2,240.00 in Court to the credit of the first party within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order.
15. Members on consultation agreed with my above decision and submitted their written opinion accordingly.