1971PLC170 (PLP)

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an application under section 25(1)(6) of the 'East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party was that he was a peon in the employment of the second party since 1st June 1964 and he was drawing a last pay of Rs. 110.00. He was working satisfactorily under the second party. On 28th February 1970 when he went to the office, the second party verbally dismissed him from service without assigning any reason and without paying him the salary for the month of February 1970 and other legal dues. He sent a grievance petition to the second party to which they sent a reply on 6‑3‑1970. The grievance not having been redressed he has filed this case. He prayed for re‑instatement to his former post with all back wages and other dues. The second party filed a written statement in which it was stated that for some times past suspicion arose regarding expenses incurred in connection with postage. As the first party was handling the despatch of mails and postal stamps, he was kept under observation. In the month of February 1970, 3 postal receipts of registered letters issued by the post master of the Tikatuily Post Office were checked and‑produced before the post master who, do verifying the records stated that the amount of money written on the postal receipts were interpolated and inflated figures were inserted. He certified the correct amount on the body of the receipts. It was found that the first party drew bill for postage on the basis of the inflated amount. The first party was verbally told to explain and he confessed his guilt. He prayed that he should not be proceeded in writing as under that circumstance he would be found guilty and might be taken to Police custody; arid as he would be dismissed, he might lose prospect for other job elsewhere. Hence on his suggestion he was allowed to leave. He was not dismissed, nor it is correct that he was refused to draw his salary for February 1970. The first party did not collect his dues, on the contrary sent a grievance petition with false allegation. Hence his case should be dismissed with costs. It appears from the reply to the grievance petition that the first party was informed that he misappropriated office money by forging postal receipts. He was also told to report to the Office on any working day to collect his wages for February after deduction of his advance, etc. It appears that the first party did not report to the office in accordance with the in struction given in this letter. Now the first party's grievance was that he was verbally dismissed. The second party hold the position in this respect to the grievance petition that his services were terminated. Now according to law if the firs party had committed such a gross offence as alleged by the second party, the proper course that they should have taken was to hold a formal enquiry according to law and not to verbal terminate his services without giving him legal termination dues. In that sense by their own admission, the second party, whatever might be the offence of the first party as alleged by them, should have given him the termination benefits. Now during hearing the second party produced some postal receipt and argued that the first party was really guilty of offence for forging postal receipts and inflating the amounts therein and misappropriation of office money. Their position is that they have, very kindly, not handed over him to the Police on a compassionate' ground and a clear understanding received from the first party that he would not make any different move in the matter. Now the first party has concealed the case of the second party in his plaint and also in his pleading. However, at this stage it is difficult to establish the charges against the first party as no enquiry has been held against him. In such circumstances, it appears to me that the second party as per their own admission should give the first party legal termination benefits. In view of the circumstances as stated above, I do no consider it advisable to direct the second party to re‑instate the first party to his former post as already a long time has elapsed. In the result, this case is allowed on contest and it is directed that the first party be given termination benefits as per provisions of law. If the second party has a criminal case against the first party, they are at liberty to approach the Police or the Court. The second party is directed to calculate the termination benefits and deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of this order. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members in giving my above decision.