1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is all applica--tion -under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was employed as a motor driver under the second party on 20- 1-67 at a monthly salary of Rs. 300'00. The second party was not regular towards payment of his salary and there were part payments as a result of which an amount of Rs. 3,427 fell in arrear by the end of 1968. The second party decided to close truck business for a period of 3 months in the middle of 1968 and told the first party to come after 3 months to resume his duties as well as for arrear payment. On 10-11-68 the first party went to resume his duties, but he was told to come on another date as the truck was not fit and finally he was told to come on 5-12-68. But he was not allowed to resume his duties on 5-12-68. He was told to come after a week. So the first, party became suspicious of the motive of the second party. He then pressed for resuming his duties but he was then informed that his services were no longer required. During his service period he was not allowed any kind of leave. The first party sent a grievance petition on 16-12-68. But the second party refused to receive the same though it was sent under registered post with A/D. He prayed for re-instatement with all back, wages.
3. The second party submitted a written statement in which it was stated that the first party wide false submissions regarding his pay, area---s of pay, mode of payment, appoint--ment, etc. He further stared that the first party was employed from 20-1-67 for the second term on daily wages of Rs. 8'00, and usual overtime pay. The truck is a three-toner light petrol carrier. The driver never used to discharge his duties properly in view of the many other pre-occupations of the owner, second party. He was not given accounts properly by the driver. One clerk Tofazzal was sent to take accounts. But he failed to give daily accounts properly. The daily earning of the truck amounting to Rs. 50'00 used to remain with the driver who used to deduct his wages and other expenses from daily earning. So the question of non-payment of wages did not arise. During off season that is, the rainy season, etc., the driver used to get Rs. 7.00 per day. Another clerk was sent to check the day- to-day accounts. But the first party was annoyed with this. On 12-8-68 the driver took some money and went away. But then he neither submitted the accounts nor he resumed his duties. The second party Waited up to 13-9-68 and then appointed another driver of 14-9-68. The first party never decided to close his truck business. The application filed by the first party is tendentious, malicious, false and is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. My predecessor examined two witnesses from the side of the petitioner first party, and 4 witnesses from the side of the second party, the last one being partly examined.
5. Now, a preliminary point has been raised. This is whether the application is maintainable.
6. So the point for determination is whether the application is maintainable and whether the first party is entitled to any under section 25 of the Act: FINDINGS AND DECISION In the present case it has been submitted by the second party and admitted by both the parties that the owner of the truck has only one truck. It is submitted that he is connected with various other partnership business. But the truck is the only establishment of this nature. The owner is to take Rs. 50'00 per day, for letting out the truck. Only one driver was employed. !t has, therefore, been stated that as this truck is a single establishment employing only one worker. or so, the case of the present first party does not come fox any relief under the Standing Orders Act. Section 1 (4) (c) clearly shows that there shall be at least five or-more workers in the establishment for giving, jurisdiction of that Act to particular establishment. Though it has been said that the second party had other business in partnership with others it appears that this truck was a self-sufficient unit and' the second party was the sole owner of this truck and as such in this establishment only one or two workers were employed. In that view, this application is not maintainable.
7. It appears that witnesses have been examined without going into the cordinal point of this case, that is, the question of main--tainability of the application. In view of my finding above, I find that this case is not maintainable.
8. Hence it is ordered that this application be dismissed -on contest but without costs.
9. Members on consultation agree with my decision above.