1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).----This is an applica--tion under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, made by Nooruddin Ahmed, against Messrs National Engineering Works, with a prayer for re- instatement to his former post with all back wages.
2. The case of the first party is that he had been serving under the second party as a permanent worker as Engraver for the last 9 years drawing pay of Rs. 215.'OO,per month at the time of his illegal and arbitrary dismissal by the second party from his post in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. The second party had taken a signature of the first party on a voucher showing threat and duress. On 1st June 1969, the second party dismissed the first party by sending a person named Mr. Haji Sakku Chowdhury. Sakku Chowdhury conveyed the news that the services of the first party had been dismissed. As the peti--tioner did not believe Sakku Chowdhury, he went to the workshop E on 2nd June to perform his duties, but he was not allowed to do H his work and he was informed by the second party that he was dismissed. He served a grievance petition upon the second party by registered post with A/D. ou 16-6-69, but he was not given G any reply. Hence this application.
3. The second party entered into appearance and contested the case. Their submission is that the first party served as a National L. M. F. doctor, and after his retirement he was employ--ed by the second party as an engraver out of sympathy and pity as he had a big family to maintain. The first party became very old and his hand started to tremble, as it appeared to the second party that it was not possible to get services from the first party particularly from at rembling hand. The work of engraving requires a very steady hand. So the second party wanted to retire the first party from his service. In the mean time the business of the second party became dull as much less orders used to be received. Being compelled by circumstances the second party conveyed the decision to the first party requested the second party to give him some time pleading that he had some school- going childern who had been attending to different educational institutions and so he had to stay for few months more. That happened in August 1968. Out of sympathy the second party kept the first party on the pay roll though the second party had no work. Finally on 31-3-69, the second party paid an amount of Rs. 400.00 to the first party in clearance of all his dues 'and told him that his services were no longer required. Thereafter the first party also went with satisfaction that he was retired and never returned to the second party. It is not known due to whose evil advice he had filed this false, mischievous and concocted petition in this Court with the intention to get termination benefits. This application was, time-barred and should be dismissed with cost.
4. Evidence was taken from both - sides. Different papers were admitted into evidence from both the sides.
5. Point for determination is whether the first party is entitled to re-instatement to his former post as prayed for.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears in this case that the parties admitted that the first party was an old man. Now the first party claimed that his age is 60. The common point of agreement is that the first party is an old man. Admittedly he was a Medical Officer in Kushtia in 1950. He was a National Pass L. M. F. doctor. It also appears that his hand trembles while he signed his name in the evidence sheet. It seems to us that engraving is very difficult with a trembling hand sad engraving requires very much by a `t steady hand. So it appeared to us that this old man was unfit for the work of engraving in the firm of the second party. That he is a poor financial staple is apparent from the fact that he was drawing a pay of Rs. 215.00 only after a period of 9 years' service though he is a qualified National Pass L.M.F. doctor. Unless he had been economically hard pressed, a doctor like him would not have accepted this pay. The second party said that he fad respect for this old man and that is why even while taking decision for retirement in the month of August, 1968, he allowed extension till 1st of March 1969, while he reported that he had school-going children to maintain. The first party- himself admit--ted in his evidence that he did not work in the months of April and May. The recei0t signed by him also bears an endorsement on the back page that he received Rs.400.00 in full and final settlement of his claim. The date of payment is 31-3-1969. The second party claimed that he was retired with effect from that date. So, this endorsement of the first party which has been admitted by him corroborates the averments of the second party. The first party has stated that he sent 3 letters to the second party, but he did not receive reply from the second party. He, however, did not file those applications admittedly within time after he sent the first letter on 19th April l969,.
7. Realising the helpless condition of the first party and his base, his lawyer claimed that he should be given benefits under section 16 of the Act. But we find that this application is-time-barred and the superior Courts had stressed upon the rigorous application of the time-limit as provided in section 25 of the Act. So, we cannot go beyond the legal provision and, therefore, we are to hold that this application is time-barred, and as such the first patty cannot get any benefits either under section 19 or under section 16 of the Act.
8. In view of this, it is ordered that this application be dismissed on contest but without costs: Members, on consultation, have agreed with my above decision. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.