1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This is an applica--tion under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan 'Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act, The case of the first party is that he was a permanent worker under the second party as a Booking Clerk. He was employed on 15-7-67 and was drawing a pay of Rs. 170 at the time of the termination of his services on 25-8-69. This was practically an order of dismissal passed in the garb of ter-- mination of his services by -the second party most arbitrarily and illegally. It was in utter violation of the provisions of section 18 of the Act. The second party did not hold any enquiry into the so- called allegations. What they did was that on 17-7-69 the second party No. 2 issued a notice on the first party making certain allegations such as not stamping the tickets at the I.W.T.A. terminal at Sadarghat where the first party was -working as a Booking Clerk. He submitted explanation on 24- 7-69. With-- out caring to prove the allegations the second party then dismissed him from service on the cloak of termination. Being highly aggrieved the first patty sent a grievance petition by regis--tered post with A/D to the second party on 9-9-69 with copies to the Second Parties Nos. 1 and 2. He did not get any reply to his grievance petition. It may be mentioned that another worker named Mubarak Hossain who was also a clerk was also charge-sheeted on the same allegations at the same time and giv--ing the same reply to the second party He was let off with an order that his increment should be stopped for one year for negligent performance of duty. But there was no such equal treatment in case of the first party whose services were terminat--ed by the second party. In view of all these fats the first party prayed for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages and other legal dues.
2. The second party filed written statement in which they stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature from an employee of the E.P.I.W.T:A. since the said I.W.T.A. is not an industrial or commercial establishment. It was then stated that the first party who was employed on 15-7-67 indulged in. malpractices, disobeyed administrative orders and thereafter e resold sold-tickets without stamping the date of issue. He was caught red-handed in this act on 29-6-69 and charge-- sheeted thereafter. He submitted his written explanation wherein he admitted having sold unstamped ticket. The case of Mubarak Hossain is not parallel to the case of the first party in both facts and circumstances. Mubarak Hossain sold only one unstamped ticket whereas the first party sold unstamped tickets on several occasions. It was the first offence of Mobarak Hossain whereas it was on many occasions on the part of the first party. He was also found selling unstamped tickets for which he was warned.
3. Points for determination are
(1) Whether the order of termination of services of the first party as passed by the second party .is really an order of dis--missal illegally passed?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to ?
4. DECSION Both the points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenience. At the time of hearing the parties submitted their papers which were admitted without any objection. There was a preliminary objection by the second party on the ground of jurisdiction. It was said that E.P.I.W.T.A. is a regulative by and is not a commercial or industrial establishment and hence it will not come, within the mischief of the Act. As against this it was submitted who was working as a booking clerk at the I.W.T.A. terminal, Dacca, the E.P.I.W.T.A. has several ter--minals and many booking clerks and employees who were earning money at commercial rate from the passengers and others on behalf of the I.W.T.A. It was submitted that from this fact it would be proved that whatever may be the regulative function of the I.W.T.A. it was also working as a com--mercial establishment while selling tickets and maintaining staff for that. It is admitted that this first party was employed as a Booking Clerk under the second party. This would also appear from the appointment letter a copy of which has been submitted. So it cannot be- said that the I.W.T.A. is working solely as a regulative body and not as a commercial establishment. It would, on the other hand, appear from the facts stated here that the E.P.I.W.T.A. was also a commercial establishment. Hence it comes within the mischief of the Act.
5. The second party has admitted in their written statement that another clerk Mobarak Hossain was let of from the charges with an order that one of his increments would be stopped. So it appears that equal treatment was not meted out to the first party though an explanation has been given by the first party. Further, the term that has been used by the second party although in this proceeding is that the services of the first party were, terminated by them. But in fact it appears that this is an order of dismissal in the garb of an order of termination of services. A regular proceeding was drawn up, but there was no proper enquiry. It is also clear that while the first party sent a grievance petition he was not given an oppor--tunity of being heard: No reply was given to him. There fore, the second party did not comply with the mandatory provision of section 25 of the Act. This is an illegality.
6. From the facts it would appear that equal treatment was not meted out to the first party: Whereas only one increment was stopped in case of. Mobarak Hossain, the second party could have stopped -two increments of the first party and then could let him off. Further; on hearing the parties it did not appear to us that any gross malpractice was resorted to by the first party in not stamping the tickets. The tickets were collected, admittedly, by the guards. They were torn and half of the portion was given to the passengers irrespective of their being stamped or not stamped, with date seal. This being the position, we would not consider this to be a case of any misconduct irres-- pective of the fact that even a charge of misconduct has to prove by good evidence. For all these reasons we find that illegalities were committed by the second parties in peregrinating his service.
7. While (taking 'that his services were terminated-, we find that the second party also did not give him the termination benefits. As the E.P.I.W.T.A. is an autonomous body established by the Government, we feel that in any such case the first party could be re-instated to his former post.
8. The first party explained that while there is a rush 'of passengers, i.e. booking clerk has to remain very busy even on counting notes, cash, change, etc., and he might omit to put stamp on some tickets in such a rush. We appreciate the position explained by the first party.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances as alleged we find that the order of termination of services of the first party was not-- proper and legal.
10. Hence it is ordered that this petition be allowed on contest but without costs, and an award in favour of the first party is passed. The first party should be re-instated to his former employment with all back wages and other legal dues, if any, within thirty days of passing this order. The second party should report compliance of this order to this Court. .
11. Both the Members have passed their opinion in favour of re-instatement of the first party.