1. AWARD MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-Sadek Ali is the petitioner. He alleges that he was in the - service of Chhatak Cement Factory for about 9 years. He was served with 2 charge-sheets on flimsy grounds, but there was no proper enquiry on the charge-sheets. He- was, however, ultimately dismissed from service on 31-12-69. At the time of his dismissal he was getting Rs. 155'00 per month as pay.
2. Against the order of dismissal i.e. submitted a grievance petition. But the administration refused to consider his grievances. So, he new filed this application under sec--tion 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Stand--ing Orders) Act, 1965 for re-instatement -in his service with all back wages.
3. The second-party by a written objection contended that the petitioner was justly charge-sheeted and some of the charges have been proved against him on proper enquiry. The petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct and he has been rightly dismissed from service and he is not entitled to any relief in this case.
4. Member Mr. Sabur has suggested for re-instatement of the petitioner in service, while the other member Mr. Meerza is of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly dismissed.
5. What I find from the perusal of record that there were two charge-sheets against the petitioner and there were two enquiries against him. There is one elaborate enquiry report. With regard to one enquiry it appears that the charges relating to that enquiry have nut been well established against the petitioner. With regard to other enquiry some of the charges are said to have been proved. But the enquiry report does not reveal how the charges have been proved. Shortly after the first enquiry report there was another enquiry report against Sadek Ali with regard to another charge-sheet and some of the allegations in the charge-sheets are said to have been proved against him. Be it noted that the subsequent enquiry report is not elaborate and it does not clearly show how the allegations have been proved. The fact remains that Sadek Ali previous to the proceedings lied a quarrel with the Labour Welfare Officer and two charge-sheets in succession show some grudge against the petitioner. In the subsequent enquiry the Labour Welfare Officer is a Member of the Enquiry Committee. In some previous occasions this officer was a complainant against the petitioner: That being so, the enquiry cannot be said to be impartial. Moreover, there is violation of a mandatory provisions of law for in the charge-sheet he has been directed to show cause with--in 3 days from the receipt of the charge-sheet. The law provides that the accused should .the given not less than 3 days' time to explain the charges levelled against him. In this case the statutory time has not been allowed to the petitioner. This militates against the provisions of law. From a perusal of the record I think that justice has not been done in the so-called enquiry in which the petitioner has been found guilty of the some of the allegations against him: Consequently I hold that his dis--missal is illegal. Anyway, as the petitioner has been found guilty of misconduct I do not like to trust the petitioner upon the administration by re-instatement. Re-instatement is discretionary with the Court and in the circumstances of the present case I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of re--instatement. I, however, feel that the petitioner should get full termination benefits. It is accordingly.
6. ORDERED That the case be allowed on contest in the light of my findings made above.
7. The petitioner do get the following benefits from the second party
(1) 3 months' notice pay-Rs. 465,00 ;
(2) Compensation for 126 days Rs. 65100.
(3) Full pay during the period of suspension minus subsist moo allowance, if any paid ;
(4) Wages for earned leave, if any due ; and
(5) Unpaid wages, if any.
8. The second party do pay up the amount indicated above to the first party petitioner within one month from this date.