1971 PLC 87 (PLP)

The case of the first party was that he was employed under the second party at a monthly pay of Rs. 75'00 since 1‑2‑69 and that he had been working to the entire satisfaction of the second party even working 14 hours a day. In due course of time as the second party did not make full payment and an arrear of Rs. 279*80 accumulated in his favour in the hand of the second party. On 31‑1‑70 while he demanded his outstanding balance of unpaid wages his services were abruptly terminated by the second party without giving him any benefits that was legally due to him. Being aggrieved 'he sent a grievance petition on 2‑7‑70 which was received by the second party on 4‑2‑

70. But it was not replied to. Hence, this petition for termination benefits and other legal dues. The second party filed a written statement and entered into appearance. It was stated by the second party that the case of the first party was false and that he was a daily‑rated worker. He was engaged temporarily and that there was no letter of appointment. He was irregular in attendance so much so that he was absent firm 4‑4‑69 to 31‑5‑69 and from 20‑6‑69 to 18‑7‑69 and finally he absented from 20‑1‑

70. His services were unsatisfactory and, therefore for his voluntary resignation be cannot claim any benefit. Point for determination is whether the services of the first party were terminated and what relief, if any, is the first party entitled to? The first party was examined as P. W.

1. He corroborated his statement made in the plaint and produced the grievance petition which shows that it was duly served. The second party also admitted the fact. But they stated that the grievance petition dated 2‑2‑70 was wrong whereas his services were terminated on 31‑1‑

70. But it appears from the grievance petition of the first party that the date 2‑2‑70 was shown as 2‑1‑70 by mistake as the contents corroborate his statement made in the plaint. So it appears that the second party did not reply to the grievance petition and failed to comply with the legal provision. They have also not paid him termination benefits. A Their claims that the first party was a temporary worker does not stand in the test of Law as he was employed for more than 3 months. He has produced an appointment letter, but we need not enter into the merit. It appears that the first party was a permanent worker and he is entitled to termination benefits according to section 19 of the Act. So from ‑the facts and circumstances it appears that the services of the first party were terminated without assigning any reason by the second party and as such he is entitled to receive the following termination benefits: (i) 90 days' notice pay in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 75'00 per month. (ii) 14 days' wages as compensation. (iii) Arrear wages of Rs. 297

08. It is accordingly ordered that the first party do get the termination benefits as permanent worker and other, legal dues according to the provisions of the Act. The second party is directed to calculate the amount and deposit in Court to the credit of the first party .within thirty ,days from this date. Members on consultation agreed with my decision as given above.