1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an applica--tion under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter called as the Act, made by Farook Haji Siddik, against Messrs . Fecto-Yamagen Electronics Ltd., and another.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as an Accountant 'under the second parties since 14-12-66 to work in-the office of the Company at 1. Wiseghat Road, Dacca, at a monthly pay of Rs. 300.00, He was given to understand at the time of appointment that his services would not be transferable: While he was working at- the entire satisfaction of the second party, suddenly he was directed by the second party to go to Chittagong Office and join there within 3 days, The order was passed on 9-12-68. The first party demanded an additional pay of Rs. 50.00 as his condition for joining the Chittagong Office. This was refused and the first party was apt given time to join his Office at Dacca from the afternoon- of 9-12-68, after this representation.
3. As he tried to approach the Director and Secretary he was told to leave the Office. He was directed to show cause by the second party on 10-12-68. But he was not allowed to resume his duties on the false and got up grounds of disobedience and insubordination and misconduct. He was willing to go to Chittagong on 'an increased salary of Rs. 50.00 per month. Ultimately on 7-5-69 he received a registered letter from the Company, dated 10-3-69, containing his order of dismissal. He sent a grievance petition on 7-5-69. The Company replied to the grievance notice refusing to redress the grievance and this was received by him on 31-5-69. The first party was not given any personal hearing nor, there was any enquiry- into the charges. The order of dismissal is illegal, void and mala fide and of no legal effect. He prayed for re-instatement with full back wages.
4. The second party's case was that the second party had establish--ment at Chittagong and they transferred their employees from Dacca to Chittagong, The first party was transferred to Chittagong but he demanded an increase of pay of Its. 50.00 per month. There was a bargaining.
5. The-second party at first wanted to give him Rs. 25'00 and then finally agreed to give him Rs. 50`00.
6. But the first party neither worked in the Dacca Office after the, order of transfer nor did lie accept his letter which contained the information of increase by Rs. 50'00. Thereafter for his disobedience to the office order and misconduct proceedings were drawn up, an ex parse enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and was dismissed. He has no case. The application should be dismissed with cost.
7. The first party admitted that he demanded Rs. 50,00 as an increase of pay for his joining the Chittagong office on transfer. His case is that there was no condition at the time of his appoint-- ment that he could be transferred from Dacca to Chittagong. Be that as it may, the second party stated that they entered into bargaining and finally decided to give Rs. 50.00 as pay increase. But the letter which contained the proposal of increment was not received by the first party. In the meantime he did not join the Dacca office since the order of transfer was passed on 9.12-6H. So proceedings had to be drawn, an enquiry was conducted and the first party was offered a personal hearing. But he did not avail of the same. Thereafter the proceeding was concluded ex parte and finally he was found guilty of misconduct and dis--missed. This being the position, it appears from the grievance petition of the first party that he was willing to go to Chittagong at an increased wages of Rs. 50.00. It transpires clearly that the office of the second party is not far away from where the first party was residing. There was no attempt for serving the letters by personal service.
8. They were sent by registered post with A/D and on two occasions it appeared that the letters returned with the remarks 'refused' or 'left'. This being the position, the second party held that the first party deliberately refused to accept the letters as he refused to accept the transfer order and to attend the office. The first party stated that in the afternoon of 9-12-68 he was not even allowed to enter into the office premises to resume his duties and that the second party entered into a collusive pact with the postal peen so that the postal peon did not serve the letters upon the first party and returned two same with the remark 'refused'. A very peculiar circumstance has arisen in view of 'the non-service of the letters as to whether due to the fault of the postal peon or due to the fault of the first party.
9. Now, in the present case it appears that the first party was extremely adament. He entered into a definite quarrel with the second parties who were his employers when he was transferred. He was obstinate. He did not want to go the Chittagong unless the second party yielded to pay an increase of Rs. 50'00. per month. It is the inherent right of the employer to transfer his employee to any other establishment of his Dacca and Chittagong are considered at par regarding the cost of living. The first party admitted that he is a bachelor or and this has also been found from the letter of the second party. Hr is admittedly a Articulate. The pay allowed to the first party, considering his qualification and the standard prevailing; in the country, cannot be termed very poor. In such circumstances he should join his post at Chittagong and then could demand his pay increase.
10. Further, mode of service of orders and notices through post office under registered cover with A,/D is a very recognised method and this method cannot be doubted. It is very difficult to believe that the second party entered into collusive agreement with the postman. The office of the second party was very near from the residence of the first party and the first party could go there and get his order from the second party and could 'even talk ' to the employer. It is quite obvious and this unhappy situation occurred due to the obstinacy of the first party to go to Chittagong transfer. It further appears that the second party also enquired about the change of address and sent letters to his both addresses. The first party did not submit his explanation within 4 days though he was directed to. It further appears from the belated explanation of the first party that he did not make any allegation that the Second party had any previous grudge against him and that he was refused entry into the office of the second party at Dacca. In the meantime he voluntarily absented himself from attending the office. The second party has produced all the documents and it is established that the first party from the very beginning disobeyed the orders of the second party to go to Chittagong unless hq was given increase of Rs. 50,00 and that he also did not agree to go to Chittagong with an increase of Rs. 25.00 in his salary. He did accept the letters of the Company on two occasions. He failed to give explanation in time. He also did not go for personal hearing. He voluntarily absented from duty without permission. Accord--ingly the second party was compelled to take legal steps against him. In the circumstances, I find that the entire fault lies with the first party and no reliefs can he given to him. The order of dis--missal appears to have been passed legally as there was serious misconduct on his part due to disobedience of: the office orders and procedures. The second party tolerated him for a long time and even acceded to his demand, but he did not come down from his position of non-chalance. In view of all this I find that this case has no substance.
11. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.