1971 PLP 15 (PLC)

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an appli cation, under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a Broad‑Loom Weaver under the second party on 6‑12‑

65. He took annual leave for 9 days, with effect from 9‑2‑70 to 17‑2‑70, while the mill was closed for 7 days for Eid‑ul‑Azha with effect from 16‑2‑70 to 22‑2‑70, The mill opened on 23‑2‑

70. But he was unable to come to Dacca due to circumcision of his son. On 28‑2‑70 at 10 a.m. when reported‑to duty the Labour Officer refused to give him work. On 2‑3‑70 the first party again went to join his duties, but the Labour Officer again refused him. He again went to join his duty on 3-3-70 with a written joining report. But the Labour Officer orally terminated his services without showing any reason. On 4‑3‑70 the first party sent a grievance notice: The second party informed him on 25‑3‑70 that the first party lost his services under section 5(2) and (3) of the Act. The first party was drawing a last weekly wage of Rs.55.00. The first party prayed for either the termination benefits or re‑instatement to his former post with all back wages. The second party entered into appearance and submitted in Court by way of argument that as stated by the first party he was granted leave from 9‑2‑70 and this leave was prefixed to Eid holidays and even he did not return on the reopening day of the Mill. He also did not apply for any leave after the expiry of his said leave. As he did .not return within 10 days of 'the expiry of his leave, he lost his lien to his appointment and he was kept in the badli list. This has been done in accordance with the provisions of law. The application is misconceived and should be dismissed with costs. Point for determination is whether the petitioner‑first‑party is entitled to get any relief under section 25 of the Act. FINDINGS AND DECISION It has been stated in this case by the second party that the first party could not return to his duty within ten days of the expiry of his leave as laid down in section 5 and in such an event he has lost lien to his appointment under the automatic operation of the provision of law. Now it has been admitted by the parties that, the first party went on leave from 9‑2‑70 to 17‑2‑

70. In the meantime the Eid holidays started and continued up to 22‑2‑

70. As such, automatically the Eid holidays were suffixed to the leave and it was only natural on his part to resume his duties in the normal course en 23‑2‑

70. Technically speaking, his leave expired on 22‑2‑

70. It is admitted that the first party reported for duties on 25‑2‑

70. So it cannot be said that he went after an expiry of 10 days. In fact, he returned after 5 A days and reported for his duties and as such he does not come within the mischief of the law. The explanation afforded by the first party was that he was held up at home on account of the circumcision of his son. Circumcision is a Muslim practice and as such it has particular religious sanctity in the eyes of the Muslims sad we may say that the explanation was quite satisfactory and the second party should have been satisfied with his explanation. However, there was laches on the part of the first party in not applying for extension of his leave in time. B,, that view, considering the case of both the parties, I find that the first party should be given the relief of re‑instatement to has former post. But in view of his laches, as an example we do not order back wages. Hence, the application of the first party is allowed in part and it is ordered that the first party be re‑instated to his former post within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing this order. But the first party need not be paid back wages. The continuity of service of the first party shall however, remained unaffected without any break. The second party is directed to re‑instate tae first party within the aforesaid period. Members, on consultation agreed with my decision above.