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 employed as a washer man under the second party and he was drawing a last pay of Rs. 130,00 per month. On 17-1-70 his services were illegally and arbitrarily dispensed with without any notice or payment of any termination benefits, etc. He was not even paid the arrear wages of 17 days of January 1970. He sent a grievance petition to which he did not get any reply. Then he sent another reminder to which also he did not get any reply. Then he filed this case in Court for remedy.
3. The case of the second party is that the worker voluntarily came away and he did not send any grievance petition as no such petition was received by them. No reminder was also received by them. They are willing to take him to his former post without any back wages. But the worker is not willing to accept this offer.
4. Points for determination
(1) Whether the services of the first party were illegally terminated?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.-Both the points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenient discussion.
6. The first party examined himself stating that his services were terminated illegally without any notice or any wages as per provisions of law. He sent a grievance petition a copy of which was produced in Court in which he demanded compensation in terms of section 19 of the Act. This was not replied to- admittedly. The second party held the position that they did not receive any such notice. But it appears from the A/D receipt that this was received by one Md. S. Haque on behalf of the second party on 22-1-70. The worker holds that he also sent a lawyer's notice to which also no reply was received. So it appears that the second party's story is not, correct. The second party did not adduce and evidence nor there is any good case on their part to adduce evidence on this point since the A/D receipt clearly shows that the letter was addressed to them. A copy of the letter was also sent to the Joint Director of Labour, Dacca Division. That A/D receipt has also been produced in Court. The second party wants to take back the first party without any back, wages to which the worker does not agree. He says that he is without any employment since the explusion from his service. As about the period or employment, the worker cannot definitely say on which date he was appointed. But he says that he was employed for last 3 years. This has been contested by the employer. The second party produced the muster roll and the register which show that Tajul Islam alias Taizuddin was employed in August 1968. But the records do not appear to have been maintained properly. So on consultation of papers it appears that the first party had been employed with effect from August 1968. There is no appoint--ment letter or service record to prove definitely the time of appointment. As the parties do not agree to re-instatement with back wages, there is no other alternative but to grant termination benefits as per law.
7. In the result, the application 'is allowed on contest and the second party is directed to pay termination benefits to the first party which shall be deposited in Court in favour of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order. The amount shall be as follows:
(1) Notice pay for 90 days at the rate of Rs. 130 per Rs. month390'00.
(ii) Compensation for 14 days 60'00.
(iii) Arrear wages for 17 days of January 1970 . 71'29.
(vi) Wages for 12 days unavailed of annual leave52'00.
8. 574'96 I have consluted the written opinion of Member Mr. S. A. Haleem in arriving-at this decision.