1. AWARD MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This is an appli--cation under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by the 1st party Md. Khalilur Rahman for termi--nation and other benefits. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a Senior Assistant in the General Department at the head office of the second party at a monthly pay of -Rs. 400.00 plus 100.00 as D. A. with effect from 17-4- 68and he had been performing his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors quite :Is efficiently and was holding charge of the Law Department for which be was assured a specific pay of Rs. 600 00 per month. In September 1968, the second party proposed that if the first party allowed a deduction of Rs. 100.00 per month from his pay he would be given benefits on termination at the rate of 10 times of the accrued amount thus deducted. In the month of March 1969, the second party, paid an ad hoc relief at the rate of 10 per cent. of the salary to all other workers drawing pay up to Rs. 500.00 or less, but the first party did not get the said relief, nor did he get Rs. 600.00 for his additional work.
2. From the month of August 1969, Mr. Sabbir Hassan, Director-in-Charge and others asked the complainant' to do the work of the Law Department exclusively giving a promise that he would be promoted and that his pay would be fixed later on and he would be given all arrears of dues.
3. Though the first party continued to work seriously to the satisfaction of the authority nothing happened to improve his service conditions. Thereafter he made demands and approached the Director--Charge and on 18-3-69 he became annoyed and asked the complainant to carry his normal clerical duties in addition to the works of Law Depart--ment of the Company. That when on 23-9-69 the first party I/ M again approached the Director-in-Charge for dues, the Chief Administrative Officer of the second party angrily suggested the Director-in-Charge not to pay him any money.That on 24-9-69 when he demanded an advance amount of Rs. 500.00 as medical allowance, the Director--Charge maltreated him and expelled him from the office verbally terminating his services. He sub--mitted the grievance petition on 3-10-69 under registered post with Acknowledgment Due, but he received no reply. Hence, his application in this Court for the benefits mentioned in the petition.
4. The second; party filed written statement denying all the allegations. They termed the story of the complainant as false, frivolous and motivated. The case of the second party is that the first party was verbally appointed at the request of a close friend on 16-4-68. But as the first party lacked mental balance he did not attend office regularly, nor was he found in his seat any time after period of two months when he suddenly disappeared from the office without any permission or intimation ten be used to appear all of a sudden and demand money to the Director-in-Charge purchased peace by giving him money out of his own pocket. The first party was never appointed and the services of the first party were never termi--nated. The second party submitted one Attendance Register and one Payment Register. The first party was given his pay by two vouchers only.
5. Points for decision are:--
(1) Whether the first party wag in the employment of the second party since 17-4-68 as alleged by the first party- and whether he continued to remain in the employment till his services were verbally terminated on 24-9-69.
(2) Whether the first party is entitled to any relief.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points will be dealt together.
7. On heating the parties, it appears that there was no agree--ment regarding any of the points, such as, employment of the first party in the office of the second party since 17-4-68 at a monthly pay of Rs. 500.00 and continuance of the service of the first party till 24-9-69 as alleged by him. So, witnesses were examined on the points.
8. It appears from the case of the second party that they admitted that the first party was appointed.
9. D. W.
1. Khairul Basher, who is in the employment as Assistant of the office of the second party also admits this in his evidence. But the second party's case is that no appointment letter was given to the first party and the first party also said this. Khairul Basher, however, said that he got his appointment letter. It is also not understood why a difference has been created in the case of Khailul Rahman. Whatever may be the circumstances under which the first party was appointed he ought to have been given the appointment letter. u. W. I Khairul Basher admitted that the first party was in the employment of the second party from the middle of April 1968 and he was there for about two months. The second party does not disclose the terms and conditions of employment clearly. It appears from the two vouchers (Exhs. A and A/1) produced by the second party that the first party was given an amount of-Rs. 400.00 for the period from-16-4-68 to 80-4-68 and Rs.
10. 500.00 for the month of May 1968 and these payments were made allegedly on 19-6-68. The first party discloses that the dates have been manipulated and there had been some interpolation in. these vouchers also. When these payments were made in the month of June 1968, it is very hard to understand why these payments were shown as advance payment when these payments were made for past calendar months. That shows that there was some manipulation by the second party even regarding this vouchers On the other hand it is corroborated by the first party when he says brat he was given Rs. 500.00 including Rs. 100.00 as Dearness Allowance. Ire explained that he was given Rs. 400.00 for the period from 16-4-68 to 30-4-68 as he was interviewed on 16-4-68 and the company being satisfied gave him Rs. 400.00 for that period.Admittedly the second party is a private concern and when it appears that there is no written appointment letter or terms and conditions of service, etc, he might paid Rs.400.00 according to the whims on the second party. The second party produced two drafts in his handwriting, which were approved by Mr. Sabbir Hassan, They bear the dates 10-9-68, 21-8-69, 24.3-69 and 4-4-69. That shows that during this period the first party in the employment of the second parry and that he was doing the workers regularly.In this connection Exhs.B and Attendance Register and Payment Register have been shown by the second party to prove .that the first party was mentally unbalanced and he did not sign the Attendance Register. When -the second party has admitted that the first party was taken in the employment of the second party with effect from 17-4-68 and that he has been paid according to the second party at least up to the month of May 1968, it is for the second party to explain why the first party was not given any appointment letter, why his name is not found in the Attendance Register and why he did not sign it regularly during that period and why his name did not find place in the Payment Register also, at least for that admitted period? This only show that there was something fishy. The first party stated that all these Registers were manipulated. He has given the names of some of the workers, whose names are not found in the Register. The Attendance Register has not been signed by the office boss, Director-in-Charge. It is admitted that these documents are to come from the custody of the second party and. it was also the responsibility of the second party to maintain them properly. If we say that these documents, such as, Exhs. Band came from the custody of the second party we are to admit it that they were not maintained properly, even for the admitted period. Therefore, this shows that they have been manipulated. So, these documents cannot be relied upon. Hence, the course open to us is to disbelieve these documents. On the other hand, the different exhibits of the first patty prove that he was in the employment of the second party till 24-9-69 and that during the last part of his service under the second party his wife was also till as it would appear from Exh.
4. The postal receipts of acknowledgment regarding the grievance petition (Exhs. 5 series) have been proved in Court.
11. Acknowledgment Receipt shows the seal of the second party and it appears that this was duly received by the second party, Manipulations of the records, interpolation of the writings and denial of the facts has been fashion of the second party and that is why they have gone to the length of denying the receipt of the grievance petition.
12. We have already seen that the first party was in the, employ--ment of the second party since 16-4- 68 and he continued till 24-9-9 when he was verbally dismissed by the Director-in-Charge of the second party. The first party was a permanent workman and even if his services were terminated, he have been given the legal dues as he was entitled to. But the second party did not comply with the procedures of law as laid down in section 25 of the Act. They did not reply to the grievance petition in time and they now have gone up to the extent of denying the receipt of the same.
13. However, from the evidence of D. W. l we find that there was no system of provident fund in the establishment of the second party and there ways no system of giving 10 times of accumulation thereof as has been claimed by the first party. This proposed system also appears to be fantastic.
14. In view of this we are not ready to believe the first party on this. But, however, it is felt that there was a deduction-of Rs. 100.00 from his salary from the month of September 1968 to August 1969.
15. In view of this finding I find that the second party has illegally terminated the services of the first party without giving him termination benefits and all other legal dues to which he was entitled under the law.
16. ORDERED that the following award be passed in favour of the first party.) The first party be entitled to the termination benefits and all other legal dues as detailed hereafter:
(1) Unpaid salary from 1-9-69 to 24-9-69 at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month including Dearness Allowance amounting to Rs. 400.00;
(2) Ad hoc relief at the rate of 10 per cent of the gross salary from March 1969 to September 1969, Rs. 340.00;
(3) Refund of Dearness Allowance deducted at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per-month from his salary from September 1968 to August 1969, Rs. 1,200.00;
(4) 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month. Rs. 1,500.00;
(5) Compensation for 14 days for completed one year service at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month, Rs. 240.00; and
(6) Wages for unavailed earned leave for 26 days, Rs: 418.00.
17. In total Rs. 4,098.00 (Rupees four thousand and ninety-eight) only The second party is directed to deposit this amount in favour of the first party in this Court within 30 days of passing this order.
18. This order is passed in complete agreement with the learned Members, who were present in Court and who have submitted their written opinion.