1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-This case arises out of an application under section (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. Kazi Fazlul Huq is the petitioner.
2. His case is that he was an Engineer at a monthly salary of Rs. 540.00 under the second party, Parsons Corporation, an Engineering Firm. He was in service from 1-8-1968. On 6-11-1969 he applied for leave and he sought permission to leave office for making arrangement for the treatment of his wife and he believed that permission has been allowed by the Construction Engineer who told the petitioner "Go ahead". On the same date the petitioner was charged for insubordination and he was put under suspension on no pay basis. Thereupon the complainant submitted his explanation, but without making any enquiry the services of the complainant were terminated by the second party's letter dated 12-11-1969. Against that the petitioner submitted a grievance petition on 17-11- 1969, which was replied on 25-11-1969 refusing to re-instate the petitioner to his former post. So, the petitioner has filed this case alleging that the termination of his services is illegal and void and praying for re-instatement to his former post or for termination benefits according to law. The second party filed a written statement contending that the petitioner is not a "worker" and raising certain grounds of objection against the claim of the petitioner. But at the time of hearing, the second party did not turn up and the case was heard ex parte.
3. There is no dispute that the petitioner was an employee under the second party. The petitioner has taken oath. He has said that his work was to supervise the works of the contractors. There is nothing before us to see that the petitioner had any administrative power. He has said that, if he found any defect in the works of the contractors he had to report to his superiors. This sort of supervision of the works of the contractors divested of any administrative power does not throw the petitioner out of the category of "worker" Whatever the designation of the petitioner be, in our opinion he is a "worker" as defined in the Standing Orders Act, 1965. His application shows that he believed that permission has been given to him to leave office. Anyway, he was charged for insubordination: He was asked to show cause within 3 days from the date of charge. This is against the mandatory provision of law for the worker must get full 3 days' '--time to submit his explanation. Again the petitioner was, suspended on no pay basis that is not warranted under the provisions of law. This is another illegality. There is no paper to show that any enquiry was made on the alleged insubordination While the petitioner was charged for misconduct it appears that the services of the petitioner have been terminated. This termina--tion of the services of the petitioner cannot be under any provisions of law, except under section 19(1) of the Standing Orders Act, Whatever the rules of the second party Corporation be, it must not offend against the provisions of the Standing Orders Act. Dispensing with the services of the petitioner in the 'manner in which it has been done has offended against the natural justice. It is illegal and invalid too. The petitioner has prayed for re-instatement. He has also prayed alternatively for termina--tion benefits. The petitioner it appears served for little over one year and we may take it that he was a permanent hand at the time of termination of his services.
4. For apparent reasons I like to give termination benefits to the petitioner instead of passing an order of re-instatement in service.
5. Both the Members are of opinion that the petitioner should get termination benefits.
6. The petitioner will accordingly get the following benefits from the second party:-
(1) 90 days' pay in lieu of notice at the rate of Rs. 540-00 per month;
(2) Wages for 14 days as compensation;
(3) Unpaid wages up to November 12, 1969, and
(4) Wages for earned leave, if any, due.
7. The second party do pay up the amounts indicated above to the first party petitioner within one month from today.