1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter mentioned as the Act.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a permanent worker as Darwan under the second party since last 20 years. The second party wrongfully and illegally discharged the petitioner from his service and relieved' him on 1-10-1969. Due to the sudden discharge he became unemployed. He is entitled to be re-instated as the second party has various establishments in the province and - that the petitioner's service was transferable, and hence the question of retrenchment from a particular establishment in his case does not arise. The petitioner had a very satisfactory service all through his service career. He has rendered extra duties on 1,040 Sundays but he was not paid anything. He is entitled to Rs. 5,600 on this count. The petitioner gave legal notice of his grievance to the second party who received the same on 1-1-1970 and gave a reply on 21-1-1970 asking the petitioner to appear in his office on 2-2-1970. When the petitioner appeared in his office, the second, party made payment of dues of casual leave amounting to Rs. 644, but did not pay the dues regarding remuneration for Sundays. The second party on the said date took away the letter- written by them to the petitioner. In the circumstances the petitioner has prayed for a direction to re-instate him to his former post with all back wages or direct the opposite-party to pay Rs.
3. 5,600'00 as his remuneration for 1,040 Sundays.
4. It appears from the case of the second party that the first party who was employed in .the Ashuganj establishment of the second party was retrenched from service on 1-10-1969 as the Chairman of Messrs M. M. Ispahani Ltd., ordered to close down the Ashuganj Agency.
5. In the present case the second party's plea is that the first party was retrenched as the Ashuganj Agency has been closed down on the orders of the Chairman. It is submitted admittedly that Messrs M. M. Ispahani. Ltd., has various establishments throughout the Province and the petitioner being in the establishment of Messrs M. M. Ispahani Ltd., was transferred from one establishment to another during his 20 years' service. The first party stated that only for the closure of the Ashuganj Agency he could not be retrenched as the second party had other establishments where he could have been transferred in view of his seniority in services. This is a very reasonable argument. In this particular case, no question of retrenchment arises since Messrs M. M. Ispahani Ltd., is no composed of a single establishment only at Ashuganj. It there fore, appears that this retrenchment is very much unreasonable in the case of the present petitioner who has 20 years' service at his credit and from the service certificate it has been established that his services have been found extremely satisfactory. However, it was said that he worked for the last 12 years in the establishment of Messrs M. M. Ispahani Ltd. In no way the case of this particular worker comes under retrenchment. It may only be said that his services were terminated by the second party under the cloak of retrenchment as otherwise he had to be paid compensation according to the provisions of section 19 of the Act. It must be admitted in the present case that his case had no connection with the closure of the Ashuganj Agency since he was a permanent worker of Messrs M.
6. M. Ispahani Ltd., who has branches and agencies through out the Province According to tine provisions of sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act the petitioner could not have been retrenched as the employer was bound to retrench that worker first who was the last person to be employed in that category. In the present case the first party's own case is that he was employed for the last 20 years whereas the second party stated that he served for 12 years and it was quite clear that during this period many other Darwans must have been employed under the second party and this has also been asserted by the first party. According to the provision of section 13 of the Act in case of making an exception to this rule, the employer must record the reason in writing. From the so-called notice of retrenchment I find no such particular reason. B Hence this so-called retrenchment is unjustified and illegal. Section 14 of the Act has put a bar to this action in the sense that even in the case of a regular retrenchment the employee had to give an opportunity to the retrenched worker to b taken into his employment if vacancy arises within a periods of one year.
7. We have already found that this was not a regular retrenchment. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to re-instatement to his former employment with all back wages minus the sum which has already been paid to him. Hence this application is allowed on contest and it is awarded that the first party be re-instated to his former post with all back wages minus the amount already paid to him within a period of one month from the date of passing this order, by the second party, by observing the rules of retrenchment as the case may be. The second party shall report compliance of this order to this Court in time.
8. Members on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of re-instatement with back wages.