1. MD. NURUL HUDA(CHAIRMAN).-The, present application is apparently under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, The petitioner (Abdul Wahab) alleges in his application that h,- was a permanent worker under the 2nd party at a monthly wages of Rs. 400.00 and that he was arbitrarily and illegally dismissed from service on 12-1-70. He further says that the submitted a grievance petition but without 4ny favourable result. So, he has come up before this Court with a prayer for re-instatement in service or for other benefits --provided by law.
2. Second party, on the other hand, maintains that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for riotous and disorderly behaviour and on proper enquiry he has been found guilty of misconduct and he has been rightly dismissed from service.
3. Now we have got to consider whether the order of dismissal is valid and proper and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in this case.
4. The petitioner alleges that there was no proper enquiry and he says on oath that he was not allowed to adduce any evidence. It appears that the charge-sheet does not mention on which date the petitioner committed acts of riotous and disposal behaviour. It does not also show that the petitioner was ever asked adduce any evidence, nor does it show that he was given chances to be heard in person. It appears that certain witnesses were examined touching upon the allegation against the petitioner. There is a note in the deposition sheets that the petitioner refused to cross- examine them. They do not reveal that the petitioner was asked to cross-examine them. They do not reveal that the petitioner was asked to cross-examine the witnesses. The charge-sheet does not show that full 3 days' time was given for explanation. The conduct of the case on behalf of the 2nd party appear to be haphazard in so far as no enquiry reports was submitted at the time of hearing or before its conclusion. A sort of copy of a report was filed some days after hearing of the case and they have not taken any note of it as it is coming unaware of the petitioner. Considering the materials and circumstances I am inclined to hold that there has not been proper enquiry in this case about the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and consequently the order of dismissal is not valid and proper. This is also the opinion-of the two members sad they have advised for re- instatement or for full termination benefits.
5. Re-instatement is discretionary with the Court: The petitioner is undesirable in the view of the Establishment. There is also some evidence of unruly behaviour against the petitioner, whom we have also marked while he deposed before us. On the facts and circumstances, I do not think it sound to order re--instatement. In my judgment alternatively the petitioner shoal be given termination benefits.
6. It is, therefore, decided that the petitioner (first party) do set from the 2nd party the following benefits:-
(a) Three months' pay in lieu of notice;
(b) 56 days' wages as compensation;
(c) Wages for earned leave, if due;
(d) Wages for the period under suspension minus subsistence allowance, if paid and
(e) Arrear pay, if any due.
7. The second party do pay up the dues of the first party accordingly within one month of this order.