1971 PLP 454 (PLC)

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑This is an applica tion under section 25 (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with a prayer for re‑instatement to his former post as. against an order of illegal termination of his services. The case of the first party was that he was working for the last 3 years at a monthly wages of Rs. 44.00 plus free food and lodging and other incidental expenses. He was a member of the Union which went on a strike. The said strike ultimately ended by an order of prohibition by the Govern ment dated 6‑5‑70 of which they were informed by their General Secretary, Ashrafuddin Ahmad on 9‑5‑

70. He went along with others to join his duties on 10‑5‑

70. But the second party refused employment on the ground that he was a participant in the strike. Thereafter, he sent a grievance notice. But no action was taken by the second party. Hence this application. The second party's case is that the first party never went for duty after prohibition of the strike. This was a case of voluntary dereliction of duty. Hence no relief could be given to the first party. Point for determination: (1) Whether the services of the first party were illegally terminated from service? (2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to? FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.‑The first party was examined as the only witness of the case. The other party failed to produce any witness or docu ment in support of their version of the case. There is no exaggera tion in the statement an able bodied worker was employed for a net amount of Rs. 40.00 plus free food and lodging and inci dental expenses. The first party has clearly stated that he was refused employment when he went for duty on 10‑5‑70 after being informed in the late afternoon of 9‑5‑70 by their Union secretary about the prohibition of the strike. The Government prohibited the strike on 6‑5‑

70. But it seems that due to the inefficiency of the Government machineries and for inefficiency of the via media that is, the Union, the matter did not reach the ear of the worker sufficiently ahead that is, before 9‑5‑

70. Three days were lost in making a communication with the first party regarding the news of prohibition and this time lack is not due to the fault of the first party who was a member of the Trade Union who had no access to the order being an illiterate worker or so who could be employed for Rs. 40.00 only. It is reasonable to presume that this period could have been considered and condoned by the Management as a matter of contingency and as such extenuating circum stance for permitting him to join his duties. The second party slid not give him any such consideration nor did they take any plea that he went on duty late. This being the position, in the civil application it seems that the first party's case is tenable, reasonable and is established beyond doubt. The second party has not offered any witness for examination. So their version goes unsubstantiated. In the result, the application succeeds, and the second party is directed to re‑instate the first party to his former post with half of the back wages for the period from 10‑5‑70 and his date of joining. The second party is directed to re instate the first party to his post within 30 days from the date of passing this order and the worker is directed to report for duty immediately after this order. I have considered the opinion of the members. .