1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN).-Petitioner M. Z. Haider, Chief Engineer, Hafiz Textile Mills Limited has filed this case under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. His case is that he was in the service of the second party, Hafiz Textile Mills Limited as their Chief Engineer. The terms of service envisaged among other things termination of the same by 3 months' notice on either side. The petitioner served a notice in writing to the second party on 17-9-69 for relieving him from services with effect from 31-12-69. The second party accept the resignation by their order dated 17-10-69 with immediate effect. It is said that as per conditions of service the petitioner is to continue in service up to 31-12-69 and as he was not allowed to do so because of acceptance of resignation by the second party, he claims notice pay for 3 months and he has also prayed in this case for other relief, such as, salary for the month of September 1969, compensation for 14 days and leave salary.
2. The second party by a written statement contends the claim of the first party. It is contended by the second party that the petitioner is not a "worker". It is also contended that the second party accepted the resignation rightly and there is no cause for giving notice pay to the first party as claimed. It is also said that after submitting resignation the petitioner did not attend his duties.
3. The points that arise for decision are: (1) Is the application maintainable?
(2) Is the petitioner entitled to notice pay as claimed and any other benefit as mentioned in his application?
4. DECISION For convenience of discussion both the points are taken up together.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner M. Z. Haider was the Chief Engineer of the Hafiz Textile Mills Limited at a monthly salary of Rs. 2,000.00 including allowances. The very designation and emoluments show that the petitioner was a highly paid Officer. He has said in his, deposition that he was not invested with any managerial or administrative power while acting as the Chief Engineer of the Textile Mills. He says that as Chief Engineer of the said Mills he was preparing designs, drawings and making supervision of the execution of constructions. It, however, appears that he was Chief Engineer of the United Construction Company. It is in the evidence of Mr. Athar Ali Khan, disposing for the second party, that on behalf of the Hafiz Textile Mills Limited the petitioner worked for the construction works of the Mills under United Construction Company and that the petitioner received salary from Hafiz Textile Mills. It appears from Exh. B that the petitioner passed an order as Chief Engineer of the United Construction Company converting the services of a daily paid employee during the construction of the Hafiz Textile Mills to a monthly paid employee. This shows that the petitioner had administrative powers with regard to employees connected with the construction works of the: Hafiz Textile Mills. What appears from materials before us, is that the construction company under the name of United Construction Company is for the. construction work of Hafiz Textile Mills. The petitioner in his evidence says that he joined as Chief Engineer of the Hafiz Textile Mills and as that of the United Construction Company on the same 'date; i.e., on 1-6- 1968. From his own deposition we get it that he was also entrusted with the supervision of construction work of Hafiz Textile Mills. It is doubtful whether he was paid twice from two organisations Hafiz Textile Mills and United Construction Company. In our view the petitioner had adminis--trative powers as well as power of supervision of construction works of Hafiz Textile Mills.
6. That being so, the petitioner's cannot be a "worker." as defined under the Standing Orders Act. It is not necessary in view of this finding to enter into merit of the case. Anyway to give fullness to the judgment I do so.
7. The appointment letter Exh. I shows that the appointment was for two years and. either of the parties had the right to terminate the appointment at any time with 3 months' notice to the other side. Here in the instant case the petitioner has served notice. The right to have 3 months' notice in this case is a right; with the second, party. They have waived the right and have accepted the resignation on the expiry of one month. That the second party can very well do. Under the law, a permanent worker can terminate his employment with one month's notice. --Here in this case the resignation has been accepted on the expiry of one month. It appears that the petitioner made over the charge of his duties on 4-11-1969. That shows that the petitioner accepted his termination of service in view of the acceptance of his resignation by the second party. Now, to say that he is, entitled to pay up to December 1969 is a vague question. There is nothing to see that the petitioner attended office after submitting his resignation. It is said by the witness for the second party that after submitting notice for resignation the petitioner did not attend office. In these circumstances the claim of the petitioner for 3 months' notice pay is absolutely misconceived. When it is a case of resignation, compensation for 14 days is not also allowable. If the petitioner has got any dues from the second party as his salary that he will get, but not by any order from this Court.
8. Both the Members have opined against the maintainability of the case and have advised for dismissal of the same for the reasonsl6 stated by them.
9. In view of my findings made above I hold that the application is not maintainable and that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in this case. Hence, ORDERED That the case be dismissed on contest.
10. Parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs.