1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This is an application under section 25(1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter called as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed on 3rd August 1961, as a Bee-keeping technician in the Rural Industrial Service of the East Pakistan Small Industries Corporation hereinafter referred to as EPSIC, on a monthly of salary of Rs. 160 and other allowances as admissible to the staff of EPSIC. On 28th December 1963, he was posted to the Pilot Project for Bee-keeping on a monthly pay of Rs. 220 with effect from 1-12-1963. On account of the meritorious record of service of the applicant he was recommended by the Joint Director at Khulna for the post of Assistant Officer- Incharge, Sales and Display Centre, Khulna on' a much higher salary. When the file was put up to the Chairman of the EPSIC, he arbitrarily passed an order terminating the services of the applicant.
3. He received that order on 11-10-1969. He addressed a grievance notice to the Chairman of the EPSIC on 13-10-1969, but received no reply. He 'sent another application to the Joint Director of the EPSIC on 12-10-1969 for grant of his accumulated earned leave and medical leave. But there also he received no reply. He was given 3 months' notice in the letter of termination which expired op 10-1- 1970. But he was not given any other benefits to which he was entitled under section 19 of the Act.
4. He has claimed compensation for 8 years and 10 months' service, Accumulated earned leave for 6 months and 29 days accumulated leave for rest and recreation for 2 months, half-average pay for 250 days' medical leave, ad hoc relief at the rate of Rs. 41.25 for 9 months and 21 days.
5. The second party entered into appearance and filed written objection wherein they stated, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in so fat as the provisions of the Standing Orders Act is not applicable in case of any worker and technician of the EPSIC. They have claimed that EPSIC is not an organis--ation which comes within the mischief of proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Act. It has been further stated that the first party is not a worker since he was employed as a Beekeeping Technician. The EPSIC is not a profit earning concern, and it is neither a commercial nor an industrial establishment within the definition of East Pakistan Shops and Establishments Act, 1965. This being the position, they have farther stated that the services of the first party were found redundant when EPSIC decided to wire up that Project. Accordingly his services were terminated, with 3 months' notice. Any employee of the EPSIC is guided under its own service terms and conditions, and the present first party has been given all the benefits as per the terms and conditions and that his, petition cannot be separately considered under. the Standing Orders Act.
6. Point for determination is whether the first party is entitled to receive benefits under the provisions of the East Pakistan Standing Orders Act.
7. FINDINGS AND DECISION In this cage though in the written objection the second party has raised some legal points, but they have not been pressed before this Court by their lawyer. It has been stated in the written objection that EPSIC employees are not covered by the Standing Orders Act in view of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Act.' Neither the written objection nor the lawyer of the second party could impress us with any facts that the EPSIC is directly owned and managed by the Government and that their employees are guided by- the Government Servants Conduct Rules. On the other hand, it transpires from the written objection of the second party that EPSIC has its own service rules and regulations to guide the conduct of its employees. As such, the point raised by the second party that they will not come within the mischief of the: Standing Orders Act has no substance. Further, it appears on a reading of section 3 of the Act that EPSIC might have its own rules regulating employment of worker or any class thereof, but such rules shall have to be either equal or more favorable to the provisions of the Standing Orders Act as EPSIG by its very definition is an industrial establishment or a corporate body of industrial establishments. It cannot, probably be regarded as an industrial establishment and therefore, the provisions of the Act in so far as it is applicable to the category of workers would be applicable in its case too. By their written objection the second party has clearly established that they do not want to give any other benefit to the first party except the 3 months' notice pay. That shows that the conditions of service in case of the EPSIC are not more favorable than what the provisions of the Act laid down for them Therefore, if the first party is a workman within the definition of the Act; the provisions of the Act would be equally applicable to his case though he may be employed in the EPSIC. From the definition of 'worker' I find that a Bee-keeping technician could also be termed as a 'worker' as he used to do some technical job. By the very nature of work possibly he was employed in the trade-promotional activities in the Rural Industrial Services.1 Project. He was not connected with managerial or supervisory type of work. Therefore, in a very plain sense the first party is a worker.
8. The rest of the points are quite simple in this case. This is that while his services were no longer required, he was given 3 months' notice for final termination of his services. So the second party knowingly wanted to give him retrenchment benefits. It-has been admitted by both sides that there was n equivalent post in the EPSIC for a worker of this nature. As such, when the Project was closed in so far as Bee-keeping is concerned, he could not but be retrenched. He is, therefore, entitled to receive retrenchment benefit' as per provision of section 12 of the Act.
9. The first party has claimed benefits of accumulated earned leave, accumulated leave for rest and recreation and medical leave, etc. But these are not applicable even under the Standing Orders Act. He can only get earned leave up to 30 days. - As for ad hoc relief, it is admitted that EPSIC has given ad hoc relief to its workers. So the first party is entitled to receive ad hoc relief for that period during which he was in service and the ad hoc relief was given to other employees.
10. In the result, this application is allowed on contest and it is ordered that the first party be given the following benefits in terms of the provisions of law: -
(1) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for every completed year of service or for any part thereof in excess of six in an the, that is, for 9 year s (9 x 14)=126 days at the rate of Rs. 410 per month.
(2) Accumulated earned leave for 30 days at the rate of Rs. 410 per month.
(3) Ad hoc relief for 9 months and 10 days at the rate of Rs. 41.25 per month.
(4) Any other dues payable by the second party to the first party to be calculated by the second party.
11. The second party is directed to calculate the entire amount and deposit the same in Court within 30 days from the date of passing this order, to the credit of the first party.
12. Members on consultation agreed to the above retrenchment benefits to the first party.