1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application 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 employed under the second party as an Assistant Moulder at a monthly salary of Rs.150.00. He was placed under suspension by the second party on charges of misconduct on 29-4-1969. Thereafter on a show of holding an enquiry the second party dismissed him illegally. He preferred a grievance petition which was not replied to by the second party. Hence this application.
3. The second party did not file any written statement. But from their submission in Court it appears that the substantive case is that the first party is a man of turbulent and indiscipline nature. He was not discharging his duties properly and when confronted on that score by the Moulder Moslemuddin, he abused him in filthy .terms and later also assaulted him with shoes to the chagrin of the Management. Thereafter the second party charge --sheeted him, suspended him for misconduct, held an enquiry and on the basis of the findings dismissed him. He has no case for giving him termination benefits or for re-instating him to his former post. The case should be dismissed with costs.
4. Points for determination are
(1) Whether the first party was illegally dismissed from his post by the second party with out complying with the procedures and meeting the ends of justice ?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to ?
5. DECISION Both the points are dealt with together for the sake of convenience: At the time of hearing in Court both parties submitted some papers which were admitted without any objec--tion. It is admitted that the first party was engaged for a period of 2 years as Assistant Moulder till he was suspended by the second party on charges of misconduct on 29-4-1969. There after the second party held an enquiry regarding the charges drawn up against him. Some witnesses were examined. It is held by the second party that the charges of misconduct were established against the first party and accordingly he was dismissed for misconduct. It was however, found that according to the provision of section 25 of the Act the first party sent a grievance petition to the second party which was not replied to. It appears that by not replying to the grievance petition the second party has violated the mandatory provision of the Act. No hearing at this stage was given to the first party though this was compulsory under section 25 of the Act.
6. Now entering to the papers which were produced by the second party regarding the disciplinary proceedings taken against the first party we find on a scrutiny that the witnesses who were examined against the first party to establish the charges, all stated before the enquiry officer that it was the other party Moslemuddin who pushed and assaulted the first party and also took away his shoe to cook up fake charge against him ; that he succeeded in cooking a case against the first party is clear from .the fact that the second party dismissed the first party though the evidence speaks in favour of the first party. It, therefore, appears that the second party deliberately with mala fide motive arrived at a finding which is contrary to the evidence on record. The fact remains that this evidence was collected by the second party from the statements of persons who were employed under him. So, it appears that this order of dismissal is contrary to the reality of the case, and it was mala fide and motivated. It also shows partisan spirit of the second party. In view of this we find that this order of dismissal passed on the first party by the second party is not only mala fide and tendentious, but it also sma cks of gross illegality. This is a case of illegal dismissal and therefore, the first party is entitled to all termination benefits under section 19 of the Act. While considering the case for re-instatement of the first party we have also taken into consideration these circumstances. We think B that the professional interest 'of the first party would not be safe at the hands of the second party if he is-re-instated as the second party would be in a position and very definitely is in a mood to find fault with the first party. Hence it is ordered that an award be given in favour of the first party as against the second party in the following terms
(1) That the first party be given 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month Rs. 450.00.
(2) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for 2 years-- Rs.140.00.
(3) Unveiled of leavepay if any, to be reported by the second party.
(4) Unpaid salary if any, to be reported by the second party.
(5) Any other legal dues.
7. The entire amount shall be calculated by the second party and deposited in Court in favour of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order. Both the members have submitted their written opinion wherein they have held that the first party should be given termination benefits as per section 19 of the Act.