1971 PLP 123 (PLC)

MD.NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). The petitioner Abdul Mannan has filed this application under section 25 of the Standing Orders Act, or re‑instatement in his job from which he is said to have been removed for rode Union activities. It is alleged the peti tioner and soma other workers of the 2nd party in a meeting held on 30‑11‑1969 formed a Trade Union. The: second party did not find with good grace the formation of this Union and terminated the service of the petitioner by a letter, dated 5‑1‑1970. It is alleged that this termination is a case of victimisation for lawful Trade‑Union activities. The petitioner filed' a grievance application but with no tangible 4enefits. So the petitioner has come up before this Court. 2nd party while denying the main allegations of the petitioner contents that the application is not maintainable in so far as the petitioner is not an offic6r of a registered Trade Union and that he was offered the termination benefits. Allega tion of victimisation is stoutly denied by the second party. We have got to consider whether the application is maintainable and whether :he petitioner is entitled to any relief, in this case. It is a case of termination under section 19 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. Proviso to clause (b) of subsection 41) of section 25 reads as follows: "Provided that no complaint shall be against an order of termination of employment of a worker under section 19 unless the worker concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the worker concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade Union or not has been deprived of the‑benefits specified in that section." Here is the instant case. The Trade Union, which the petitioner and others have formed, had not been registered when the application was filed. This is clear from the application itself. So no question of the petitioner being an officer of registered Trade Union arises. On this score the application is not maintainable. Then again the letter conveying termina tion has offered termination benefits to the petitioner and asked him to collect the same from the Account department of the establishment. In this circumstance I do think that any relief is available to the petitioner in this case. The learned members have given their opinions. I am sorry I cannot agree with the view of the learned member who suggest for re‑instatement of the petitioner. The petitioner will get full termination benefits as provided by law and the 2nd party seems to be agreeable to this. With these observations I should reject the application of the petitioner. Hence, That the application of the petitioner be rejected on contest.