1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHA1RMAN:).-This is an application under section 25 (1) (b) of the East 1'anis",ai Employment of Labour r (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, filed by the first party A. K. M. Tozammel Haque with a prayer for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages.
2. The case of the first party was that he was employed as a time-keeper at a monthly pay of Rs. 154.
40. The second party drew up charge-sheet against him on some cooked up grounds and he was under suspension: for about 2 months. During the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, his services were terminated by an order dated 27-2-1970 He sent a grievance petition and thereafter he filed this case with a prayer for re-instatement.
3. The second party did not file any written statement, but entered into appearance and stated verbally that this is a simple case of termination of the services of the first party under section 19 of the Act and that the second party is willing to pay all the termination benefits and other dues; the first party is entitled to. The Labour Officer of the second party Mr. Golam Martuja appeared in Court and said that the second party is willing to pay 3 months' notice pay to the first party, 14 days' com--pensation for one year's complete service, annual leave for one month, full pay for 2 months' suspension period; etc. The members are present. The parties were heard at length on the point. It appears that the second party wanted to get rid of the first party by drawing up charge-sheet and that the first party was suspended from service for a period of 2 months. During the pendency of the enquiry proceeding his service were terminat--ed. It has been stated that the second party acted with mala fide intention in drawing up the charge-sheet and to take disciplinary action against the first party and when they sensed that the pro--ceeding would fail, they have taken recourse to section 19 of the. Act. On this ground the first party prayed for re-instatement r to his former post, But it appears that under law whatever may be the motive of the second party, an employer can terminate the services of the permanent worker by giving him legal dues under section 19 of Act. In the present case the second party is more than willing to pay him all legal dues including termination benefits. Hence we do not feel that the matter should be pressed further, since in case of illegal dismissal even nothing more than termination 'benefit could be given to a worker where the employer is unwilling to accept him.
4. In view of this the second party is directed to pay all the dues as has been admitted by them through their Labour Adviser in this Court.
5. The case, therefore, is allowed on contest and it is awarded that the second party r shall deposit in favour of the first party alt termination, benefits and other dues within one month from today as has been admitted by the second party without fail.
6. Members present expressed their opinion that the first party should be given termination benefits.