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, which will be hereinafter called as the Act, made by the first party Alamgir Miah, for termination benefits.
2. The case of the first party is that he was a fitter-helper under the second party since 1-6-68 at a "Monthly- wage of Rs. 65,00. He was doing overtime work for about 12 hours every day from 1-7-69 to 22-8-69 as there was no drawn for that period. He demanded overtime pay, when the second patty verbally terminated his services on 25-8-69 without paying him wages from 18-8-69 to 23-8- 69 and the over time wages. He was not paid termination benefits. Being aggrieved, the first party sent a grievance notice on 29-8-69, but he was not given any reply. Hence this application has been filed in Court on 7-10-69 for the above-mentioned benefit.
3. The second party entered into appearance and filed written statement wherein they stated that the application is frivolous, flimsy, vexatious and misconceived as the first party voluntarily left the factory and that the entire case is false. He was brought to the factory by his relative Jainal Abedin, a drawn of the second party and was appointed on 1-6-68 as a helper. He was allowed to stay inside the factory premises. Thereafter there was a quarrel between him and the said drawn in consequences of which the first party deserted his work. There is no question of discharge or termination of the services of the first party by the second party on 25-8-69. The allegation of doing overtime work is also false as- there were drawn in the factory. The second party further said that they wanted to take him back to his work. But he is not entitled to any back wages as he voluntarily went away. The second party further is willing to pay him for 23 days of the month of August 1969 minus an amount of Rs. 40.00 taken by him in that month as advance.
4. Now the point for determination is whether the first party voluntarily left his work and whether he is entitled to get the termination benefits as claimed by him.
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears that the- first party sent a grievance petition by register post with A/'D. The A/D. appears to have been signed by one Jainal Abedin though it is addressed to MIS. F. M. Sikdar & Sons. It further appears that said Jainal is still in the employment of the second party who singed the acknowledgment receipt on behalf of the second party. So it cannot be said that the second party did not get the grievance notice. It is an admitted fact that the grievance petition was not replied to' by the second party, It appears on a perusal of the carbon copy of the grievance petition that the first party raised the same point as he has raised in the application before this Court. So the first party's case is not new. It is found that the first party sent grievance notice to the second party relation his case and that the second party received the same, but gave no reply. As such, the case of the first party appears to nave been proved, The second party has now tried to avoid the consequence of the application pending before this Court by saying that the first party left .his work after quarrelling with the drawn. Had it beer so, they could have replied the grievance petition and invite him to join to his work as has - now been stated by them in the Court. So we cannot, accept the belated version of the second party. The second party now, wants to re-instate the first party to his former post, but they do not want to give him back wages. It appears that the Minimum Wages (Fixation) Ordinance, 1969, came into existence from 1st of July, 1969. It is now known whether this is applicable in the factory of the second party, as neither side mentioned about the numbed of workers employed in the said factory. As the first party has claimed only termination benefits we cannot order re- instatement.
6. Hence it is ordered that the present application be allowed and the first party be granted termination benefits at per rules as follows:
(a) Notice pay for 90 days in lieu of notice, at the rate of Rs. 65.00 per month.
(b) Compensation for 14 days.
(c) Wages for unavailed of annual leave, if due.
(d) Unpaid salary for 23 days of August, 1969 minus the advance taken by the first party, The prayer for overtime wages has not been proved rind as such the same is rejected.
7. The second party is directed to calculate the above amount and deposit in Court to the credit of the first party within 30 days from the date of passing this order.
8. Members on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of granting termination benefits to the first party.