1971 PLP 530 (PLC(CS))

MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). The petitioner Sand Gopal Saha alleges that he was a Driver under the 2nd party, Bengal Constructions Ltd., on a monthly salary of Rs. 125 for about 10 months and that he was suddenly dismissed from service on 29‑10‑69 by the Managing Director of the 2nd party Mr. Khalilur Rahman. The petitioner submitted a grievance petition, but to no effect. So the petitioner has filed this case praying for re‑instatement in service or for other benefits available under the Law. The second party contend in their written statement that the‑ petitioner was appointed on an ad hoc basis and that he of his own accord deserted the service. We shall first consider whether the petitioner was dismissed from service as alleged by him or he deserted the service as contended by the second party. We shall then consider whether the petitioner is entitled to any benefits. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was dismissed from service on 29‑10‑

69. On 30-10‑69 he submitted a grievance petition against the dismissal. In reply to the same the second party said that the petitioner was served with a notice of separation. No copy of said notice is, however, produced. Then again the written statement makes out a clear case of desertion which is not however supported by any material on record. The petitioner in his application clearly said that he was dismissed on the alleged ground of taking commission from repair bills, and the petitioner has also mentioned this in his grievance petition. The second party did not say anything on this in the reply to the grievance petition. On the other hand it is sought to be said that the petitioner was absenting from 29‑10‑

69. Considering the facts and circumstances I am inclined to hold that the petitioner has been dismissed from service as alleged by him, and that without giving any opportunity to him to explain his conduct, this dismissal is, therefore, illegal. The petitioner was in service for about 10 months. There is nothing to show that he was appointed on ad hoc basis. The second party is a permanent establishment and as the petitioner was not appointed for any specified period, he became permanent on the expiry of the period of probation. As his dismissal was illegal, he is entitled to reliefs in this case. I am not inclined for apparent reasons, to pass an order for re‑instatement in service. But I propose to give full termination benefits to the petitioner. Both the members have also opined accordingly. The petitioner, therefore, will get the following benefits from the second party:- (a) 90 days' wages in lieu of notice at Rs. 125 per‑month: (b) 14 days' wages as compensation: (c) Unpaid wages for 2" days for October 1969; (d) Wages for unavailed earned leave, if any due. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the petitioner within one month from today.