1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This is an application under section 25 (2)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter mentioned as the Act; by one Kazi Daulatur Rahman, an ex.-clerk of the Kohinoor Jute Mills, Ltd. P. O., Ramnagar, Dacca, for termination benefits as admissible under the law.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a Clerk under the second party with effect from 26-7-1968 at a monthly salary of Rs.175'00. While he was in the service of the second party, he was suddenly called by the Manager on 22-12-1969 in his chamber and was told that his services were terminated and that he should not come to the office from the next day. No termination benefit was paid .to him as was permissible under the law and that the company did not comply with any legal formalities as enshrined in the law. He sent a grievance petition .on 26-12-1969. The- scond party received the said grievance petition but did not reply the same till 1-2-1970. Hence this application in Court for legal benefits.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing written statement in which it was stated, inter alia, that there was no cause of action and that the petition .was mala fide and that tote Labour Court, is not a Court within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Act. It was further stated that the first party suppressed the material fact and filed a false and frivolous case though he is not entitled to any relief. 'It was stated by the second party that the first party was employed under them -since 20-7-1968 at a monthly pay of Rs. (75.00, They, however, denied that there was any verbal termination of the services of the petitioner on 23-12-1969. The second R party held that the first party was still in the employment of g the second party as he himself went away without showing ie any reason. He was directed to join to his duty and a letter' was sent to him by registered post.
4. But the letter was returned unserved on the ground that he went away elsewhere from the is, place of work. it was further submitted that the first partycommitted certain acts of misconduct for which he was charge-- sheeted and he was told to take the charge-sheet on 23-12-1969, but he surreptitiously left the office and did, not return thereafter. The said charge-sheet was then sent by post. The second party received a letter from the Assistant Director of Labour for an inquiry in the matter. They cause to learn that this inquiry was ordered on the basis of a complaint made by the first party - to the Martial Law Authorities. The second party thereafter attended the office of the Assistant Director of Labour on 1-1-1970 and 3-1-1970 in course of which they placed all material facts. The first party also agreed to resume his duties and to receive the charge-sheet and to submit explanation thereafter. But later he did neither report for duty nor received the - charge- sheet. The second party then sent another letter which was returned unserved. The second party received the so-called grievance petition and replied to it on 10-1-1970 directing the first party to resume his duties. The first party did not comply with the said instruction and instead, filed this false and frivolous case. He was not, therefore, entitled to any relief and the petition should be dismissed in the bud. The second party contended that the first party was still in service and offered him to resume his duties, to face all the proceedings against him as might be legally justified.
5. Both the parties were present. The parties also produced some papers. Both -the members were present. As there was a dispute regarding basic fact of the verbal termination order, etc., two witnesses were examined by the first party regarding his contention that his services were verbally terminated. One witness was examined by the second party employer. The witnesses were all cross-examined.
6. Points for determination are-
(1) Whether the services of the first party were verbally terminated as on 23-12-1969 by the Manager of the second party.?
(2) To what relief, if any, is the first party entitled ?
7. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for the sake of discussions. At the time of submission before the Court no law point was raised by the second party. The only point that was agitated before us by the parties is whether the services of the first party were terminated by the second party.
8. The first party claimed that his services were verbally terminated by the Manager Mr. Shamsul Azam while he called him to away and direct--ing not to return any more. Manager wanted to give him termination benefits for one month. The petitioner further submitted that his wife was a school teacher at Chittagong and on request of the Manager she was brought to the Mill premises for being appointed as a teacher there. But she was not given any employment when she arrived there. When the Manager proposed that his services should be terminated,' it was a bolt from the blue, for him. So he wept and then toe Manager told him to come on the following day. When he went on the following day, the manager told him to submit his resignation while he promised that he would be paid his dues. As the first party did not agree there vas an altercation and directed a security guard to turn him out and not to allow him to enter into the mill premises any longer. He sent grievance petition on 26-12-1969. He denied that he was ever offered any charge-sheet on 23- 12-1969. He said that he sent a representation to the Martial Law Authority which was enquired by the Labour Directorate who instructed him to go to the Labour Court. He was afraid that he could not go back to the Mill where he might be victimised. So he prayed for termination benefits. The only cross-examination that was done to him that he did not know why the Manager told him to quit the Mills' services. P. W: 2, A. Momin, Export Officer of Co-operative Jute Mills deposed that he knew P. W. 1 and also Mr. Mohammad Ali, Director of Kohinoor Jute Mills Ltd. On losing his job P. W. 1 approached him anti requested him to make 'tadbir' for him for getting back his job. He talked to Mr. Mohammed Ali. But Mohammad Ali said that if the first party resigned first he would make arrangement for termination benefits: Then, P. W. 2 suggested that the resignation should be given in one hand and the payment should be made by the other hand. But said Muhammad Ali did not agree to this proposal. So the talks failed. It was revealed from the cross-examination of P. W. 2 that this Muhammad Ali was the Operative Director of Kohinoor Jute Mills Ltd. D. W. 1, Mostafizur Rahman who was the Labour Officer of the second party deposed that he joined his duty on 9-9-19-69, that is, only 3 months before the termination of the services of the first party. He said that there were some applications filed against the first party. There was charge-sheet against him and he was told to take the same on 23-12-1969, but he deferred the same and did not turn up from the following day. The witness said that some of the complaints were from mill labourers and the rest from outsiders. It may be mentioned here that none of these mill labourers or outsiders were produced in Court. Further, when these petitions were asked to be produced, at least 2 of the same were in the same handwriting. He said that these' complaints were received earlier but action was taken on 23-12-1969. , The witness further said that even after the charge-sheet they received complaints from people against Mr. Kazi Daulatur Rahman. The most revealing part of the evidence of D. W. 1, is that he said that the first party approached him and told him that he was in great difficulties and then he assured him (petitioner) that the witness would see that he got 2/3 months' pay- This clearly indicates thatthe first party was thrown into distress for some obvious and compelling acts, by the second party and this one fact alone testifies the veracity of the statement of the first party that he was turned down from the mills and that big services were really terminated by the Manager Mr. S. Azam. The uncompromising attitude of the second party would be further clear from the evidence of P. W.
2. The Operative Director Mr. Muhammad Ali wanted to dictate terms to the first party even when he sent application to the Martial Law Authority. It is believed that the so-called complaints were manufactured by the second party and though the second party now offers him to go back to his employment, this is only for further oppression and repression on the first party. It was suggested to D. W. 1 that complaints were manufactured after the first party lodged his case to the Martial Law, Authorities and that these complaints were fictitious. I have already pointed out that none of these so-called com--plainants` were brought in Court. The fact that the Manager called the first party to his office on 23-12-1969 would also show that something transpired between the first, party and the said Mill Manager Mr. Shamsul Azam.
9. The first party has been examined on oath and his contention has practically gone unchallenged.
10. But the relevant person from the second party that is, the Manager Mr. Shamsul Azam has not been examined in Court, as possibly the second party is afraid that on oath said Mr. Shamsul Azam cannot lie in the matter. It has not been said that anybody else was present at that time. Further, it is also not understandable why the Mill Manager has to serve the charge-sheet by his own hand in his chamber to the first party. The second party that now gives a very peculiar, offer to the first party that is calling him back to employment for drawing proceedings against him. This is not - really, a genuine offer of the employment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. In view of these pre-dominating overwhelming evidence on behalf of the first party we find that the services of the first party were verbally terminated on 23-2-1969 and that he was expelled from the Mill by the Manager has been proved to the heel. Even the D. W. 1 said that out of sympathy he wanted to arrange 2/3 months' wages. This fact alone is considered to have proved the harassm ent to the first party. The first party was a non-metric, but he was employed at a pay of Rs.
12. 175.00. This was an arrangement which possibly the Mill authority did not finally like. None of the parties wanted to reveal the back ground of this employment of the first party. But in any case, the first party is not to be blamed for getting an employment under the second party. The second party were powerful Mill authorities and they could manufacture any number of papers against the first party when they have had many workers under them. In sheer desperation when the first party approached the Martial Law Authorities the second party was alert and they manufactured all these papers. Therefore, we cannot give any credence to all these papers. It appears that while terminating the service of the first party the second party did not comply with any of the legal procedure, but has later manufactured a case in their defence while the first party approached the Martial Law Authorities and the Court. The second party has not brought any witness competent to prove that the first party himself left the Mill out of his own volition. It appears that the first party was a permanent worker under the second party. As none of the legal formalities under section 19 of the Act was complied with, the first party is entitled to receive benefits under section 19 of the Act.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to pass an order re-instating the first party to his former post as in that case the desperate employer might try to make vengeance upon him on creating pleas: Hence the application succeeds and it is ordered that an award be passed in favour of the first party on contest on the following terms--
(1) The first party should get 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 175.00,plus ad hoc relief per month.
(2) Unpaid salary for 23 days of the month of December 1969 including ad hoc relief.
(3) Compensation for 14 days.
(4) Unavailed leave salary, if due, to be reported by the second party.
(5) Any other legal dues, to be reported by the second party.
14. The second party is directed to calculate the above amount and deposit the entire award amount as ordered above, in Court to the credit of the first party, within thirty days of passing of this order without fail: On consultation of the members I find that they have submitted written opinion to the effect that the first party should be given termination benefits under section 19 of the Act.