1971 PLP 466 (PLC)

(2) What relief, if any, the first party is entitled to? Points 1 and 2.‑Both the points would be dealt with together for the sake of convenient discussion. One witness each was examined from the parties. It was submitted by the second party that they sent a letter on receipt of the grievance petition directing the first party to resume his duties. It appears from the connected A.D. receipt that this was received in the house of the Labour Representative of the first party. The recipient lady however, did not hand over the letter to the first party or to the Laboar Representative of the first party, it now transpires. As a result, the first party sent another application through his lawyer. In reply to the second letter of the second party in which he was directed to explain why his services would not be terminated. It is the case of the first party that he sent a copy of the lawyer's letter and also personally went and, met Mr. Wazuddin and expressed his willingness to attend to his duties. The letter was neither replied to by the second party as has been admitted by O. P. W. 1, nor, as it appears from the evidence of the first party, was he allowed to join his duties as otherwise also this would appear from the circumstances. The second party's witness in his deposition stated that the first party did not join his duties at any time after his departure from office on 9‑10‑

69. The first party stated that he was abused and was about to assault by said Wazuddin Shaheb when he went to resume his duties. He was turned out. This scene occurred in presence of so many other who happen to be the employees of the second party, but they would not dare to depose against the formidable second party that is, Mr. Wazuddin. This explanation of the first party appears to be plausible and a reasonable one. This is a case where there is no appointment letter and there is no terms service. There is no service book and there is absolutely no security of service. The second party did not take any disciplinary action against the first party though they threatened the first party with one after the receipt of the first party's grievance petition. Whether the first letter directing him to resume his duty was obtained or not, the first party stood in a very precarious position vis‑a‑vis the strong stand of obstinacy taken by his employer who would not rest content without his expulsion from the factory without payment of his legitimate dues such as his arrear pay, notice pay and compensation for tile period of service. Even according to the admission of the second party they wanted to terminate the services of the first party. But this was not done formally. Even by their own standard the first party should have been given termination benefits. Admittedly this has not been paid to the first party. The case as such, appears to quite clear. This is a case of termination simpliciter. The employer is not in a happy mood towards the worker and therefore, a direction for re‑instatement to his former post would not result in a happy understanding between the two. In the result, the application succeeds. It is ordered that the application be allowed on contest and the second party be directed to give full termination benefit to the first party within thirty days. The termination benefits should be as follows: Rs. (1) '90 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 250 per month. 75000 (2) Arrear pay for 9 days of October 1969 72,00 (3) Compensation for 14 days 110'67 939'25 The amount shall be deposited in Court by the second party in favour of the first party within the aforesaid period. I have consulted the written opinion of Mr. S. A. Haleem, Member, in arriving at this decision.