1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application,---under section 25(1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employmentof Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter called as the Act, made by Moinul Islam, with prayer for termination benefits.
2. The case of the party is that he was appointed as filter mistry on 2 February 1969 at monthly pay of Rs. 139.00. After 4 months his pay was raised to Rs.150.00 and he continued in that post till 11-11-69 when his services were terminated by the second party without observing any formalities by the second party. He sent a grievance notice which was not replied to. He then filed this case.
3. The second party's representative verbally submits that the filter mistry was at first appointed on daily wages basis and later he was given monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 150,00. But as the nature of work was temporary, he remained as temporary worker althrough. The first party then voluntarily absented, from duty since 11-11-69 and as such he has no claim for termination benefits. It appears from the submission of the second party that the first party was lastly treated as a monthly-rated worker. It also appears that he sent a grievance petition under registered cover -with, A/D, but it was not replied to by the second party. It, therefore, means that he was aggrieved but the second party did not redress his grievance. So the submission of the second party that the first paity voluntarily left his duty does not cut much ice. If the first party has verbally left his duties, the second party could have replied to his grievance petition by stating the fact to him and directing either to join to his duties or to collect his dues. But in the present case the second party did not reply to his grievance petition. This is now a very late submission by the second party that the first party had abandoned his duty. We refuse to believe this version of the second party. As regards the temporary nature of work as claimed by,nd the second party, they have failed to substantiate their contention by producing any document: Their only argument is that the Accountant is on leave and could not attend the Court with the relevant documents. But there must be the Manager or other competent person who could produce the papers. There is no proof that those --persons for any reason are unable to attend then Court. We do not see why this Court shall wait for the Accountant when the second party has no case at all as it appears from the- circumstances of the case. In view of this we have to hold that the first party had been holding a permanent post in the second party and therefore he is entitle to receive termination benefits of a permanent worker.
4. In the result; the application of the first party is allowed on contest and an award is given in favour of the first party granting him the following benefits.
(a) 90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 150.00 per month.
(b) 14 days' compensation:
(c) Unpaid salary, minus the advance given, if any.
5. The second party shall calculate and deposit the award amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order.
6. Members on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of granting termination benefits to the first party.