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 referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that ' he was a permanent worker under the second party since his appointment on 10-5-68. He was working at Ashuganj thermal power station up to 11-I1-69 since his appointment. On 12-I1-69 he was transferred from Ashuganj to the original office of the second party at Dacca. On 4-3-70 he was transferred again to Ashuganj and was told to join- there in the forenoon of 5-3-70. He appeared before the second party on 4-3-70 with an applica--tion for reconsideration of the decision of transfer praying that he should be kept at Dacca. On 11-3-70 the second party informed him that his prayer has been rejected. The first party finding no other alternative submitted his resignation dated 25-3-70 giving one month's notice. But the resignation was not accepted. He was then dismissed by a letter dated- 25-3-70 without giving him .any opportunity of being heard. The petitioner sent his grievance notice on 31-3-70. But the second party did not rely to it: He claimed either termination benefits or, re-instatement to his post with all other attendant benefits.
3. The second party entered into appearance and filed written statement in which it was stated, inter alia, that the application was not maintainable as * the first party was a supervisor, not being covered under the provisions of the .Act. As his service was purely supervisory in nature, he could not claim any benefit in the Labour Court under the Standing 'Orders Act. . They denied all the allegations of the first party and further stated that he was -transferred -in the last time and was also warned that his continued absence from duty could lead to his dismissal. He did not comply with the direction of the second party as contained in the second party's letter dated 11-3-70. He re--mained absent from duty as usual. He submitted his resignation letter giving one month's notice which means that it would be elective from 25-4-70. It was clear that he wanted to avoid hi4 transfer to Ashuganj and also get the benefit of one month's notice period. Thereafter he was dismissed on definite charges as were already brought against and pointed out to him.
4. Points for determination in the present case are:
(1) Whether the first party is a 'worker' and the case is maintainable as such?
(2) Whether the order of dismissal is sustainable in law?
(3) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION All the points would be dealt with together for the sake of convenient discussion. . In the present case , it has been stated that the first party was appointed as a supervisior in his very appointment letter which has been produced in' Court. It further appears from the personal particulars of the first party as submitted by the second party that the first party also passed the Diploma in Civil Engineering besides his S. S. C. Examination. His qualifications are suited to the post of a supervisor and he was as such, appointed vide his appointment letter. So it cannot be said that he was a worker and not a supervisor. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the first party was a supervisor and as such he does not come within the purview of the Act and claim benefits as a worker is entitled to.
6. We have already discussed and found that the first party is not a worker and as such, he cannot claim any benefit under the Standing Orders Act, and hence the case is not maintainable. In the meantime we find from the proceedings against him that he was transferred to Ashuganj from Dacca. But he con--tinuously defied the clear direction of the authority who also stated that his continued absence from Ashuganj would be treated as misconduct and would lead to dismissal.
7. Knowing the risk full well he continued to defy the orders of the second party and on the other hand, sent a resignation letter which was to take effect after one month. In the meantime he was to act according to the order of the authority and was to comply with the order of transfer. This he did not do and as such, his offence was quite patent and clear. As the offence has been fully established I see no merit in the case also otherwise, In view of this finding, I find no relief could be given to the first party.
8. The application is, therefore, dismissed on contest but without costs.
9. I have consulted the Members and they have agreed with my findings given above.