1971 PLP 545 (PLC(CS))

The second party while admitting that the petitioner was in service contends that he was a casual worker on daily basis wages and that he deserted the service under the second party willingly. In this case we have got to consider, whether the petitioner was a permanent worker as alleged by him and whether he is entitled to any relief in this case. It is undisputed that the petitioner was under the employment of the second party as Bus Driver continually for a period over one year. The petitioner alleges that he was continuously in service from 23‑7‑68 to 18‑8‑69 ; whereas the second party says that he was engaged on 22‑7‑68 and he worked till 15‑8‑

69. Whatever that be, the fact remains that the petitioner was con tinuously in service under the second party for a period of over one year. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was monthly rated driver at a pay of Rs. 400.00 ; whereas the contention of the second party is that he was a casual worker on daily wages. When the continuity of service for over one year is admitted by the second party, the question that the petitioner being a casual worker loses its force. The second party nowhere says in his written statement what was the daily wages of the petitioner. As against this, the clear version of the first party in his applica tion is that he was a monthly rated worker at a salary of Rs. 400.00. The grievance petition submitted by the petitioner also shows that he claimed to be a monthly rated worker. It is unchallenged that no reply was given to the grievance petition by the second party, which was received by the second party on 4‑9‑

69. Both the parties, have led oral evidence. The same adduced by the petitioner appears to be more dependable. The second party has produced no paper to show hew the wages of the petitioner was paid. So in consideration of the evidence and circumstances, I have no manner of doubt that the petitioner was a monthly rated worker at a salary of Rs. 400.00 per month. There being no doubt that the petitioner was in continuous service for over one year, we can take it that it was a permanent worker under the second party. The fact remains that the petitioner's services have been terminated. The termination of the services of the petitioner is not apparently under section 12 of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. It appears that the second party has surrendered documents of his car and that was on 30‑12

69. As services of the petitioner were terminated before that date, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been retrenched on the ground of redundancy under section 12 of the. Standing Orders Act. The termination is not a case of discharge on the ground of ill health, nor it is a case of dismissal for misconduct. Apparently, therefore, the termina tion of the permanent service of the petitioner comes under the purview of section 19(t) of the Standing Orders Act. That being my view, benefits available to the petitioner under that section should come to him. Both the Members have opined for giving benefits to the petitioner as a daily rated worker. With them L do not agree, because of my findings made above. In my findings the petitioner will get the following benefits from the second party (1) 3 months' pay in lieu of notice at Rs. 400.00 per month ; (2) 14 days' wages as compensation ; (3) Unpaid wages, if any, due for the month of August, 1969 ; and (4) Wages for earned leave, if any, due. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the first party petitioner within one month from today.