1970 PLP 780 (PLC)

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN: This is an application under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter referred to as‑the Act. The case of the first party is that he was employed under the second arty as a toner since 17‑1‑69 at a monthly wage of Rs.250,

00. Before that the first party was induced to join the second party's firm after leaving another firm on the assurance that his services would not be terminated. But on 9‑10‑69 the second verbally terminated the services of the first party without party and benefits as permissible under the rules. He sent a grievance petition on 9‑10‑

69. The second party replied on 13‑11‑69, but it was not satisfactory. He sent another letter but no reply was given. He was not permitted to join to his duties. Hence he prayed for reinstatement with full back wages, in the alternative, for termination benefits as permissible under law. The second party did not enter into appearance in the present case. Several chances were given to them from the very beginning. This is the 6th date on record. The first party has produced papers. We have given him a hearing. It appears that his services were verbally terminated on 9‑10‑69 He then sent a grievance petition. In reply to this the second party sent a letter asking, him to show cause why his services should not be terminated. This letter is dated 13‑11‑

69. As against this the first party replied that he did not receive their earlier letter. But he submitted that he went' for duty but he was not permitted to attend to his duties. The matter appears to be a little ticklish. However, it appears that the second party did not turn up. Hence the claim of the first party has to be admitted. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case I feel that the‑first party should be given termination benefits as the other party being a private employer is not favourably disposed to the first party and is trying to avoid the legal processes by dubious means. If he is re‑instated it would create further complications and some ill‑feelings might follow. Sir the first party is given termination benefits as is permissible under the rules. Hence the application of the first party is allowed ex parse and an award is given in favour of the first party to the following effect: (1) The first party shall be given: (a) 90 days notice pay, in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per month. (b) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for every completed year of service or for any part thereof in excess of six months, that is, for 14 days. The second party is directed to calculate the entire amount and deposit the same in Court to the credit of the first party within 30 days from the date of passing this order. Members on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of granting termination benefits to the first party.