1. F. I. M. NURUL ABEDIN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. The case of the first party is that he was a driver under the second party for about 9 months and his pay was Rs. 150.00 per month. That on 6-6-69 at 4-00 p.m. the second party called him to his office and terminated his services. The first party sent his grievance petition, but to no effect. Hence, he has come to this Court for termination benefits.
2. The case of the second party is that the first party got the car of the second party repaired by his own man. But the car was giving trouble. So, he called another Mechanic to examine it and it was directed that the old carborator was not replaced by new one, though the first party took the money from the second party for purchasing a new carborator. When the second party challenged tile first party for such act of dishonesty, he abused him and the mechanic in filthy language and left the service on 2-8-69 with promise to purchase the new carboiator. After that he did not turn up. So, it was a case of voluntary desertion and not of termination.
3. Heard both sides and perused-the Attendance Register sub--mitted by the second party.
4. It is seen that the first party signed the Attendance Register up to 2-8-69. -The second party contends that this shows that the first party left the service voluntarily on 2-8-69 and that the case of the first' party is that his services were terminated on 6-8-69 was totally false: I think, the contention of the second party has 4ot some substance and should be accepted. The first party could -not give any explanation why he did not sign the Attendance Register on the 4th, 5th and 6th of August 1969. So, the story of the first party of termination of his services on 6-8-69 is found to be false.
5. I am satisfied from the Attendance Register that the first party worked up to 2-8-69 and after that he left the service and this fits in well with the story of the second party. Therefore, is found to be a case of voluntary desertion and as such, the first party is not entitled to get any relief here.
6. That the case be and is dismissed on contest.