1. AWARD M. N. HUDA (CHAIRMAN).--This case arises out of an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. The petitioner Mr. S. M. Sarajul Huq, as alleged by him, was a clerk under the second party Messrs Anowara Jute Mills Limited. He was a permanent employee under the second party. On some flimsy charges he has been found guilty and has been dismissed from the-services with effect from the 8th of September 1969. The first party petitioner submitted a representation to the second party on 14-9-69, but received no reply thereto. The petitioner has, therefore, come before this Court to have an order 'of re-instatement in his original job. Alternatively he has prayed for any other reliefs available to him under the provisions of law.
2. The second party has entered appearance and- contest the case by filing written objection. They contend that there was proper enquiry about the misconduct of the first party and the petitioner has been dismissed legally under the provisions of law.
3. We have got to consider, whether the order of dismissal is legal and valid and what reliefs, if any, the petitioner' first party is entitled to, It appears from a reading of the copy of the charge-sheet supplied that it is not specific, rather it is vague. The petitioner, first party, was not also given full 3 days' time to submit his explanation against the charge-sheet. It does not appear that there was any full-fledged enquiry and that the petitioner was given opportunities of being heard. The Managing Director appears to be the complainant. There is nothing to see who held the enquiry. The punishment of dismissal appears to have been inflicted by the Managing Director. The petitioner submit--ted a representation against the order of dismissal. That does not appear to have been considered at all. . The whole procedure of charging the accused, the enquiry, if any, and the order of dismissal appear to offend against natural Justice. There have been some violations of the procedure laid down in section 25 on the part of the second party.
4. In the circumstances of the case, the dismissal is held to be illegal and invalid. Definitely the administration is unwilling to accept the petitioner. The charge though vague is rather grave. The learned advocate appearing for, the petitioner, first party, alternately, prays for benefits provided by the law and he agrees to that instead of having the first party re-instated -in his service.
5. I, therefore, like to give full termination benefits to the petitioner, first party. Both the Members have also given their opinion in that line. The case is thus allowed on contest.
6. 'The petitioner do get the following benefits from the second party
(a) 3 months' pay in lieu of notice;
(b) 28 days' pay as compensation;
(c) Earned Leave pay, if any, due;
(d) Arrear pay, if any, due; and
(e) Pay for the period of suspension, minus subsistence allowance, if any paid.
7. The decree is given accordingly. The second party is directed to satisfy the same within one month from this date.