1. 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 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for termination benefits.
2. The case of the first party is that he was a conductor by profession and that he was engaged by the second party at a daily wage of Rs. 8.00 with effect from 15th December 1967. While he was discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of the employer, he was suddenly suspended from his duly with effect from 31st July 1969. On 4th August 1969, - he approached the second party to resume his duties. The second. party informed him verbally that his services would no longer be required. Being aggrieved, he sent grievance petition r--13th August 1969, by registered post with A/D with claim for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages. There were several correspondences, but to no effect. The second party replied to the grievance petition wherein it was stated that the first party was employed on 'no work no pay' basis. It was denied that the first party was ever suspended or that his services were terminated. It was stated that he was absenting without any permission with effect from 1st August _1969. Since then it was presumed that the first party got some other employment elsewhere. He was however, directed to resume his duties by 7th September 1969. After that the first party replied to the said letter claiming back wages and other legal dues before he could resume his duties to which the second party replied on 18th September 1969 saying, that the first patty did not resume his duties even by 18th September, 1969. The second party further stated that as the first party left the employment of the second party without previous intimation, permission, etc., it would be presumed that he left the job voluntarily. He was a worker on 'no -work no pay' basis and nothing is due to him. After this correspondences closed and thereafter the first party filed this case on 9-10-69.
3. In the present case it appears that the second party replied to the grievance petition on 1-9-69. So the first party should have approached the Court by 1-10-69. Instead, the present case has been filed on 9-10-69. Even giving 3/3 days' time to reach the letter of the second party, we even find that the case is time-- barred.
4. Secondly, it has been stated that the second party owner has disposed of the only bus he had. It is doubtful whether had even 5 employees under him for carrying on his business by that bus. If the number of the employees is less than five then the provisions of the Standing Orders Act will not be in this case.
5. Thirdly, it appears from the reply of the grievance petition that the second party offered the fist party to join his duties by 7-9-69 though the first party, admittedly was a daily-rated Rahi worker employed on 'no work no pay' basis. The second party E.P.~ presumed that the first party left his job from 1-8-69 as he Md. got better terms elsewhere. The fact that the first party did Islam not join his duties by 18-9-69 as complained in the second Chal letter of the second party is quite clear as. it is found that the first party started absenting from duties with effect from 1-8-69 on his own advantage and convenience. So he had committed gross misconduct by such abstention and it is quite clear that he took it for granted that he himself could disconnect his services from the second party by such abstention without protest from any day as he was a daily-rated worker. So it appears that the first party has voluntarily resigned and left the employment of .the second party.
6. The work in case of the first party does not appear to be of permanent nature.
7. In such circumstances, he could at best be termed as a casual worker. It is quite certain that the second party did run his bus when the first party left without notice. So he cannot but be termed as a worker of casual nature. In view of all his it appears that prompted by greed the first party has filed this case in this Court to get some benefits. But this cannot succeed for the above reasons.
8. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.