1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN)-This is an applica--tion under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act--- 196 5: hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was a retired Railway official and he took employment under the second party as a Supervisor on trial basis on and from. 8-10-68. His work was clerical-cum- supervisory in nature and he had no administrative, power. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs.
3. 200.00. While his last pay was Rs. 225.00 he was discharged by the second party suddenly on 5-3-
70. He sent his grievance petition on 7-3-70. He was called for a discussion. But -no proper discussion was held. Thereafter there was a course of correspondence between the parties. The second party did not pay his wages for 6 days for the month of March 1970, and also the leave. He was not given any termination benefits. His prayer is for directing the second party to re-instate him to his former post with all back wages, or else termination benefits as permissible under law.
4. The second party entered into appearance by filing written statement In which they stated, inter alia, that the case was not maintainable and should be summarily dismissed. It was ~ stated that the first party was an old and infirmed man., He was kept in probation for a long time in which period he could not prove his efficiency by due discharge of his duties. Due to his old age, loss of memory, physical and mental incapacity his further utility in the second party became redundant: He was advised to produce Fitness Certificate from the Civil Surgeon, but he failed to produce the same. Thereafter he was discharged and his legal-dues were paid. There is no question of genuine grievance in the present case. He was offered salary for 5 days of March 1970, leave salary for 16 days and compensation for 14 days.
5. Point for determination in the present case is whether the order of discharge passed against the first party is sustainable in law and whether the first party is entitled to any relief.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears from the papers submitted by the parties that the first party was appointed on trial basis. f bat trial period was extended later and it was extended from time to time by letters. On 5- 3-70 ,the second party issued the discharge letter to the first party with the observation that during the entire period of probation the first party failed to improve his efciency anti on the other hand, his efficiency decreased and for that reason he was discharged. It appears that after he sent his grievance petition he was told to appear before the second party and be was heard. According to section 16 of the Act it appears that a worker could be discharged from his service for reasons of physicial or mental incapacity or continued ill-health or such other reasons not amounting to misconduct. In the present case the first party was a retired Government servant. He reached the age of superannuation and thereafter his efficiency is a matter of contention. It appears that his period of probation was extended several time and the second party was not satisfied with the work performance of the first party. Though from a human point of view the first party who was drawing a pension of Rs. 80.00 requires some employment very badly, he cannot be thrust upon an employer who was not satisfied with the work of the first party. A In view of all this, as we have found above in the papers submitted by the parties and from their submissions, we are unable to give any relief to the first party as he has teen discharged due to his inefficiency not amounting to misconduct.
7. Hence the application of the first party is dismissed on contest but without costs.
8. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.