1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an 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 was that he was appointed by the second party on 12-4-69 at a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 315.00 as a skilled technician with the designation of Work-- shop Manager. He was a permanent worker on probation for 3 months. At the time of his appointment he could not understand the commercial diplomacy of the second party who appointed him with the designation of Workshop Manager in order to deprive him of the financial benefits as per law. His duty was neither managerial nor administrative nor executive other than technical duties as a skilled worker. When the machines of the factory were installed in order to minimise the establishment cost the second party terminated without payment of any dues. In the circumstances he has prayed for termination benefits.
3. The second party entered into appearance, but did not file any written objection. From the trend of cross-examination of P. W. 1 it appeared that the second party's caw is that the first party was a Workshop Manager and he was not a technical worker or a skilled worker. As such, he cannot claim any benefit under the Act.
4. Points for determination:
(1) Whether the first party was, a 'worker--- and whether his services had been terminated illegally?
(2) What benefit, if any, he is entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.-Both the points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenient discussion.
6. In the present case the first party has been examined and he is cross-examined too. The second party did not a examine any witness but simply pointed out from the appointment letter that the first party was appointed as a Workshop Maul get. Now we have to come to the actual connotation of the w and 'Work-- shop Manager' without remaining satisfied with the denotation of the word.
7. The first party raised in his plaint that he was not aware of the commercial diplomacy while he was so appointed.' He had no technical training. He was sin experienced worker as he worked in few other such concerns before, joining his present assignment. He stated that he was doing the work of fitting and dice making, etc., with his own hands and as also-- helping the juniors. He was neither a manager nor a supervisor. He stated that he used to purchase for the Company. He denied all other suggestions that he used to grant leave or that he used to procure people from outside for being engaged as miseries under him. As against this the second party could not a reduce any evidence except a simple assertion in Court. He also denied that he asked for extension after his initial probationary' period was over. So from the above analysis it appears that though the denotation given to the first party was that of a Manager, but in fact, the work connotation shows that he was nothing but a skilled Worker. According to section 6, subsection (2) of the Act, only the probationary period of a worker whose nature of work is clerical, could be six months. But in case of an ordinary worker it could be only for 3 months. But for reasons stated afterwards it could be extended for another 3 months. Much against this spirit of the subsection the second party at the first instance fixed a six months period of probation for the first party which ought not have been the case according to law. So we can only scent something of illegality from the very beginning. In vow of this it appears that the first party was both a worker and he was made permanent after 3 months in the due process of law and therefore, in case his services have been terminated, he should have been given 3 months (90 days) notice or pay in lieu thereof which has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the second point is also decided accordingly and the first party is entitled to get the relief prayed for.
8. In the result, the application is allowed on contest and the second party is directed to pay the termination benefits as per law to the first party within 30 days of passing this order. The amount shall be deposited in Court by the second party in favour of the first party. The amount shall be as shown below:
(i) 90 days notice pay in lieu of notice: at the rate of Rs. 315 per month Rs. 945.00
(ii) Arrear pay from 1-7-69 to 24-7-79Rs. 243.85 Rs. 1,188.85 I have consulted the written opinion of both the members in arriving at this decision.