1971 PLP 284 (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 which will be hereinafter called as the Act. The ease of the first party is that be was appointed as a driver on 20‑5‑1969 at a monthly pay of Rs. 200'00 by the Consulting Engineers (Pakistan) Ltd., and on that very day the said him transferred him to Shantahar Silo Project directing him to report to the Chief Inspector. As a matter of fact, his services were placed at the disposal of the said Shantahar Silo Project which was under the Management of second party No. 2 who started controlling him there. One Mr. C. R. Miller, Site Engineer of the Silo Project became his controlling officer. His further case is that he went on leave on 13‑1‑1970 and remained on an extended home visit till 14‑2‑1970 on medical ground. He was directed by Mr. C. R. Miller to report at the Dacca Office of the Company. Accordingly he reported on 19th February. But on the subsequent period he was neither given work nor allowing him to join till to date. His lawyer sent a notice to the second party. The second party told the first party that they would settle the case soon. But his case has not been settled till to date. He sent grievance petition. But nothing effective has been done, Home this application. The action of that second party amounts to implied termination of the services of the first party without any rhym or reason or holding any enquiry or giving any personal hearing or complying with other provisions of law. Hence his prayer for directing the second party to re‑instate him to his former post with all back wages and other dues. The second party appeared in Court on 18‑6‑1970 and then on the subsequent date they failed to appear. Today also they were found absent on repeated calls. So their case is not known. The first party has appeared in Court himself and his lawyer has explained the circumstances by producing all the documents connected with the case such as the appointment letter, the order of transfer, the order of Mr. C. R. Miller, the notice of the lawyer, the grievance petition and the reply to the first party by second party No.

1. It appears clearly to us that there has been no legal proceedings in the case. There was no enquiry, etc., and even there is no formal dismissal or termination of the services of the first party. The second party is completely silent over the issue. It further appears that the second party is not at all willing to take the first party in their firm for any work. They have refused work as well as wages to the first party. But the condition of the first party is that he is hanging in the balance in the expectation that he is still in service. The second party should either give him work and pay or they should terminate hi services formally. Till such a formal order of termination passed by the second party, it shall be assumed that the first party is still in service. The second party is therefore directed to give him full pay till to date. It is therefore, ordered that the second party be directed to give the first party full wages from February 1970 to July 1970, subject to leave adjustment if any and further give him work to justify payment of wages. If they do not give him any work, they might terminate his services formally after giving full termination benefits under section 19 (1) of the Act. In the meantime the second party is directed to deposit the entire wages of the first party from the month of February to July 1970 subject to leave adjustment for the period from 1‑2‑1970 to 14‑2‑1970 in the Court, within thirty days from the date of passing this order. I have consulted the members and they have agreed wish my findings as given above.