1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -This is an applica--tion under section 25(1)(6) 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 is that he was serving under second party as a permanent worker since 3-1-1962 and his last pay was Rs. 230.00 per month. He was dismissed on 15-4-1970 on some illegal and arbitrary charges without holding the proper enquiry by the second party. He was not given oppor--tunity to cross-examine or to adduce evidence in his favour. The fact of the case is that on 25-3-1970 at about 5-45 p. m. he was carrying Mr. C. A. Haque and Mr. A. H. Patwari to the house of the former, and when the car reached the Farm Gate, Mr. Patwari ordered him to get down from the car and go to his house which was nearer from that place. Mr. A. H. Patwari also released him on his request and went away driving. On the following day the first party attended the residence of Mr. C.
3. A. Baque, but he was not given the key of the car and so he was to go to the office on foot. The first party was issued a charge-sheet on 31-3-1970 containing baseless allegations. He submitted an explanation immediately denying the allegations. There was a show of enquiry and after that he was illegally dismissed. He sent a grievance petition on 28-4-1970. The reply given to this was unsatisfactory as his grievance was not redressed. Hence this application before the Court praying for re-instatement or for termination benefits as may be the case.
4. The second party entered into appearance and filed a written statement in which they denied the allegations of the first party and said that on 25-3-1970 the hot tempered driver stopped the car near the Farm Gate and uttered objectionable words and murmuring to himself leaving the officers there went away.
5. His behaviour on other occasions was not found satisfactory. Previously he was charge-sheeted for his misconduct and pelt to suspension. A formal enquiry was held in which he was given proper opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to adduce defence witness. He did not even sign the deposition sheet obstinately. Thereafter when the offence was established in the enquiry, he was dismissed.
6. Points for determination:
(1) Whether the first party was illegally dismissed?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
7. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.-It appears in this case that the, first party was charge-sheeted for disobedience of the orders of his superior officer. He was a driver and his duty was to drive the car of the Executive Vice-President of the second party bank. In this particular case, the first party stated that there was a transport strike on 25-3-1970 and he was staying at Mohammad--pur while the Executive Vice- President was residing at Gulshan. He stopped the car near the Farm Gate from where his residence was nearer so that he did not have to go to Gulshan from where his house was about 8 miles away. The Executive Vice-President told him to drive the car to his residence, but he did not oblige. On the following day he went to the residence of the Executive Vice-President at Gulshan.
8. But the key of the car was refused to him. So he had to go to the office on foot. The charge against him is that he not only stopped the car at the Farm Gate, Dacca and left the Executive Vice- President there in the car to drive it himself, but also uttered objectionable words in defiance of the authority and went away. A formal domestic enquiry was held in which prosecution adduced witnesses to prove ibis point. The first party was present at the enquiry and he was allowed to cross-examine them. He was himself examined. But his own admission is that he did not sign the sheets, in recognition of the fact that he was present at the enquiry. He did not adduce any evidence himself. Now the first party was employ--ed since 1962. It was alleged that while he was working under the previous officer Mr. Sarker, he once left the officer at Rangpur and came away to Dacca. He admitted that he came away from Rangpur. But he claims that he took leave. He could not remember if he was charge-sheeted for that act. This being the position we cannot find any fault with the domestic enquiry as it was in accordance with. the law and all formalities were complied. Now the consideration before us is that this driver was working for the last seven years and at he teas still working under the Executive Vice-President even after his so-called first act of misconduct with Mr. Sarker, the previous Executive Vice-President. This means that his record was not bad as he was allowed to work under 'the same officer. It seems to me that some technical bottle--neck was between the parties. If the driver were not living at such long distance of 8 miles from the house of his boss, it could got have been necessitated for him to leave the officer at the Farm Gate on that particular date. Usually in such cases the driver is given accommodation near the house of the boss or the driver finds out his accommodation near tire house of his employer.
9. But none of the parties acted in accordance with this practical principle and conduct. This driver hails from the other wing of the country and possibly he was hard pressed for want of accommodation near the locality of his boss. So he was put to strain for want of proper accommodation near the house of the employer. It was more proper on the part of the second party to find 'out a suitable accommodation in his house or near the house of the employer for practical solution of this problem. One thing is quite clear which is that first party's evidence, if any, at this stage relates only to his accommodation which the employer in his capacity and considering the nature of the job of the driver should have taken up properly. This the employer has failed to do. So I am to say that this present act of the driver in dropping the Executive Vice- President near the Farm Gate does not constitute misconduct in the peculiarity of the present case.
10. Further, it is admitted that there was a transport strike at that particular time and the driver was hard put to get transport in case he drove the Executive Vice-President in his house up to Gulshan.
11. Other factor which has been pointed out by the lawyer of the first party is that this charge-sheet was made later and some other factor interfered in between and possibly created a feeling of enmity in the mind of the second party employer who magnified this small fault of the first party. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that the first party's services have been illegally dismissed and that it could at best be a case of termination simpliciter as the first party fell from the state of grace of the second party for obviously very petty reason 'created by circumstances beyond the control of the first party.
12. The application, therefore, succeeds. The case is allowed on contest and the second party is directed to pay' full termination benefits including notice pay for 90 days, compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for every completed year of service or for any part thereof in excess of six months, and other legal dues, within 30 days from the date of passing this order. The amount shall be calculated and deposited in Court by the second party to the credit of the first party.
13. The written opinion of the Members have been considered while giving my above decision.