1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-These 4 cases have been filed by 4 individual workers under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. All these 4 cases have been filed against the same second parties and they have been heard analogously, and would be disposed of together.
3. Since my last order dated 14-9-1970, we have now received the written opinion of the Members who have held that the American Embassy Commissary terminated the services of the 4 guards illegally and without giving them termination benefits to which they are entitled. In. view of this, they have suggested that the second party should be directed to pay full termination benefits to these 4 first parties.
4. I have elaborately discussed some of the vital points of these cases in my order No. 7 dated 4-7- 1970, order No. 9, dated 6-8-1970 and order No. 11, dated 14-9-1970.
5. The case of the first parties in short, is that they were working under the second party American Embassy Commissary. Mogh Bazar, Dacca, as guards since the dates of their appointments. They were getting wages, etc. Later they formed a Trade Union which created ill-feeling between the second party and the first parties and in order to victimise them, they brought charges against the first parties. But these charge-sheets were not substantiated, and under the cloak of dismissal they have terminated the services of the first parties without giving them any benefits. The second party is a contractor firm anti under a contract with American Consulate, they have bound themselves, to obey all the central and provincial laws of Pakistan in case of labour maters. So they are bound by the provisions of the labour laws and give termination benefits to the 4 first parties who have prayed for the same.
6. Points for determination:
(1) Whether the services of the first parties have been terminated illegally, and if they area entitled to termination benefits?
(2) What other reliefs, the first parties are entitled to?
7. FINDINGS AND DECISION Shamsuddin Ahmed, first party of Case No. 233 of 1969 has keen examined. He stated that he was employed under the second party with effect from 9-9-1958 and his last pay was Rs. 126.00. His services were terminated on 5-9-1969 along with others when he submitted a charter of demands.
8. The services of 3 other guards, namely, Tazul Islam, Syed Ali and Noor Hussain were terminated on the same grounds. The grounds given by the second party for termination of the services of these 4, workers were disloyalty, disobedience and inciting other workers to realise so-called unreasonable demands. The, workers submitted separate grievance petitions on 20-9-1069. But none of them received any reply.
9. Noor Hussain of Case No. 237 of 1969 was appointed on 18-2-1952 and his last pay was Rs. 192.00.
10. The first party Syed Ali of Cast No. 236 of 1969 was appointed on 1-9-1954 and his last pay was Ra.
11. 192.00. First party Tazul Islam of Case No. 234 of 1969 was appointed on 10-1-1960 and his last pay was Rs. 164.00. Their submission is that they were victimised by the second party. Their arrear pay for more than a month was also held up. They were not given any notice or notice pay or compensation, leave pay and other legal dues at the time of termination of their services. They were also deprived of the festival leave and other leaves. The first parties have produced some documents. It appears that Mr. A. Francis; Branch Manager of American Embassy Commissary addressed all the, guards regarding their charter of demands by a letter dated 30-8-1969 and wanted to consider their case through the General Manager of the Company. He addressed another letter dated 2-9-1969 to all the guards conceding some reliefs to them. But apparently this did not satisfy the workers and they continued their agitation for realisa--tion of their demands.
12. Thereafter on 5-9-1969 the said Branch Manager issued separate, notices upon these 4 first parties the language of which is like this: "Gentleman, It has been brought to our notice that you have threatened some of your co-workers with violence if they come to collect their salaries for August 1969, unless your unreasonable demands are fulfilled. We are also aware that you are causing discontentment and agitation among the guards.
13. Since we cannot allow disharmony, disloyalty and disobe--dience within the staff, we are obliged to terminate your services forthwith."
14. This shows the authoritarian attitude of the second party. He did not even give any chance to these workers to explain their conduct. No enquiry was held, no legal compensation or other dues were given to them. It appears that this second party has thrown all norms of relationship of employer and employee to the winds in dealing with these 4 poor workers. It is clear that this action has been wholly illegal and improper. In view of the facts stated above, I find that the 4 first parties are legally entitled to full termination benefits as per provision of section 19(1) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965.
15. These 4 cases are, therefore, allowed ex parts as against the second party No. 2 and the second party No. 2 is. directed to pay the following termination benefits to the first parties
(1) Notice pay for 90 days in lieu of notice.
(2) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for every completed year of service or for any part thereof in excess of six months:
(3) Salary for un-availed of annual leave due.
(4) Unpaid earned wages, if any.
(5) Other legal dues, if any.
16. The second party No. 2 is directed to calculate and deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first parties within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing this order.
17. I have consulted the written opinion of both the Members while giving my above decision.