1. MD. NURUI, ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25(1)(b.) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party was that he was working under the second party since 1-1-63 'under Messrs Motor Works Ltd. His services were later transferred to Messrs Momin Motor Co. These two companies are 'owned and managed by the same set of persons. While working as the senior most Cashier, he suddenly received a notice on 2-2-70 sent by the second party informing him that his services were retrenched with effect from 3-2-70 on the ground of redundancy. Later however, his services were extended till 28-2-70. The second party then informed him that the retrenchment order would be effective from 1-3-70. He was not given any benefits according to law. The second party's order is illegal since he violated the procedure and the principle of retrenchment because the second party retrenched the first party who was the senior man ' in the service, but his juniors were retained in service. The second party paid him compensation for 4 years though the first party worked for 7 years. The second party did not compensate the first party for his unavailed weekly rest during the period of his service. Being aggrieved by the illegalities the first party on 12-3-70 brought his grievance to the , second party under registered post with prayer for re-instatement. The second party gave no reply though the letter was duly received and the specific period passed. Under the circumstances he has approached the Court with the prayer for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages and other dues.
3. The second party entered into appearance. Their positive case is that the first party was a line cashier in the company's line office at Tikatuly in the Dacca City for the bus service of the Dacca- Demra line. Consequent to the closure of that line 11 drivers and 9 conductors were retrenched and the line office at Tikatuly was closed. The first party was also retrenched on the ground of redundancy. He accepted his retrenchment benefits namely, once month's pay in lieu of notice, compensation at the rate of 14 days pay for each completed year of service and pay for annual leave remaining due, etc. He has absolutely no cause to complain now. The petition is false and frivolous.
4. The contention of the first party that the two companies are managed by the same set of persons is not correct. The two companies are owned by different share-holders and directors. It was further submitted that Kazi Abu Sayeed and Habibur Rahman were not line cashiers, but were checkers supervisors in the line having out-door, service. Compensation was calculated for'4 years.
5. The Offer In-charge of the office having gone out of Dacca could not give reply to- the grievance petition in time. While the proceedings were' being conducted in Court, the second party's Adviser submitted that they are willing to give termination benefits to the first party as he could not be absorbed in the service of the company. It was further admitted that one cashier is now working in another line of the company and that cashier is junior to the first party. But as the pay of that man is less and as he is more acquainted with the line where he is working the company wanted to keep him in the service. Here is a case in which the first party being a senior man was retrenched from service in violation of the principle `last come first go'. However, the company could retrench him by showing the reasons why even he being senior could lie retrenched. There is no indication given either in the retrenchment order or in Court. It therefore, seems that the second party retrenched him in violation of the principle. The other contention of the first party that he was transferred from the Motor Works Ltd and was absorded in Messrs Momin Motor Company was contested by the second party, and it has been stated by them that the first party was appointed fresh by the present second party. Naturally the papers regarding the constitution of the two companies are with the second party and they could only show if the ownership and management of the two companies are different. On the other hand, the first party asserted that though they are two companies, they are being managed by the same set of owners with slight changes here and there. So in the absence of any proof that they are different companies and managed by different persons, the first party's strong and unequivocal statement that these two- companies belong to the same .owner and management. and that he was transferred from one establishment to the other carries force and we are to believe it. Though the second party has pleaded through their representative that on economic ground they had to retrench or otherwise terminate the services of the first party and though they are now willing to give him termination benefits, I find that the services of the first party were illegally terminated. But a difficulty now arises. The second party is not willing to take the first party back to service and if he is now thrust upon the second party, possibly more complications would be created between the parties. In view of all this consideration acceptance the advice of the learned members I order that the first party be given full termination benefits by the second party on the basis of calculating the 7 years' completed service and other benefits as he is entitled to under section 19 of the Act as a permanent worker minus the amount already paid to him.
6. The second party is directed to calculate the amount and deposit the same in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order: revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.