1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an application Chan, 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 Carpenter for about 7 years in the Standard Scientific Stores. In 1967 the present second party took over the Standard Scientific Stores by purchase. His pay was Rs. 150.00 per month. On 2-4-70 there was a general strike and he could not attend to his duties on that day and that the Administrative Officer became annoyed with him and verbally discharged him without paying any legal dues. After his grievance petition he offered him only 2 months' pay. Thereafter he filed this case paying for termination benefits.
3. The second party entered into appearance and contested the application verbally submitting that the Management and ownership was changed and that the previous company had no connection with the present firm. The first party was discharged by his previous master and he was appointed by the second party afresh. The second party submitted that due to deteriorating financial condition the first party had being retrenched and he was offered retrenchment benefits.
4. Point for determination is What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to ?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION It is admitted by the parties that previously there` were two carpenters and now there is only one.
6. So, it is clear that there was a retrenchment. It is submitted that the two carpenters including the first party were appointed on the same day that is, on 15-7-67 after the Lien to their services was Is' terminated by the liquidation of the previous company.It cannot therefore, be said that there could not be any retrenchment. The plea of `hartal' has no bearing in the present case in view of the fact that the second party had no grudge on the first party for not attending his duties on 2-4-70. In view of this it is found that the first party is entitled to the retrenchment benefits. It is, however, found that no notice was sent to the Inspector of Factories as .per provisions o law. In any case, it appears to be a case of retrenchment and the second party is even now willing to send notice to the Inspector of Factories. Hence it is decided that the first party be given the following retrenchment benefits The second party is directed to deposit the above, amount of Rs. 525'00 in Court to the credit of the first party within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order.
7. Members on consultation agreed with my above decision.
8. Rs.
(1) Notice pay for one month in lieu of notice.150'00
(2) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for each completed year for 3 years (14 x 3)=42 days:21000
(3) Unavailed of annual leave due for 30 days150'00
(4) Unpaid arrest salaries for 3 days of April, 1970:15'00 Rs52500