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 a permanent worker under the second party till the date of verbal dismissal on 26-12-69. His last pay was Rs. 125.00: He worked for more than 2 years under the second party. After enjoying the Eid holidays he came to resume duties on 24-I2-69. But he was told to come on 26-1 2-69 on which date he was dismissed. He sent a grievance petition. But the second party refused to accept the same. He claimed termination benefits.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement in which It was-stated that the case was false, frivolous and baseless. The facts of the case according to the second party are that the first party joined the second party's firm: on 16-4-68. The petitioner then resigned on his own volition on 10-12-67, and all his arrear claim was paid.
4. Points for determination are: --
(1) Whether the first party was verbally dismissed as, claimed by him.?
(2) What relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience. As there has been a basic dispute 'regarding the main point for determination, we had to take oral evidence is the case. The first party examined himself and the second party also examined himself. The first party stated that he was getting a monthly pay Rs. 125.00. On 11-12-69 he went home 'for enjoying Eid holidays and returned on 24-12-69. He said that the second- party did not allow him to join and told him to come- on 26-12-69 on which date he was verbally dismissed. He said that his grievance petition was refused by the second party. He claimed reinstatement was working in another shop known as new variety douse. It, there fore, appears that he was, in the nature of leaving one shop and joining in another from time to time and he cannot be believed on this score. In view of this we find that the first party has not been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was verbally dismissed. It was not possible on the part of the second party to always sit in the shop and in his absence the grievance petition might have been refused by others. Hence this refusal of the grievance petition does not necessarily mean that he willingly refused the same. On the other band, from the conduct of the first party it appears that he is in the habit of leaving one shop and joining in another from time to time. So our finding is that he intentionally and voluntarily left the shop of the second party after resignation and as such no relief is due to him. Hence this application is dismissed on contest but without costs. Members on consultation, agree with my decision above.