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 Ouse of the first party was that he was employed as a Night Guard at a fixed pay Rs. 100.00 per month since 1961 under the second party who employed him as the Chairman of the Market Committee, Liaquat Avenue. He also raised sub--scription from the shop-keepers, but he was not paid anything for the collection. Further, he was not granted any leave during this period. On 25-4- 70 he was verbally dismissed without assigning any reason and any legal payment. He sent grievance petition on 28-4-70 which was received on 2-5-70, but was not replied to Hence this application in this Court with prayer for re-instatement with all back wages and other dues.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement in which it was stated that the case was not maintainable since there was no registered association as stated by the first party. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. The statement of the first party as such, is incorrect. The first part was a night guard employed by the shop-keepers on toll basis. He used to collect tolls himself and lastly because of his old age he abundoned the shop-keepers leaving them at large. The second party Belayet Hussain Master is a shop-keeper in the Liaquat Avenue market, and he is neither the Chairman, nor the Secretary of the market association which does not exist. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Points for determination:
(1) Whether there is any Association? .
(2) Was the first party illegally dismissed or his services were terminated?
(3) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION All the three points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenient discussion.
6. It has been very reasonably and diligently argued that there is no market association of the second party as claimed by the first party. The second party has stated in his deposi--tion that there is no such association which has been registered and he is neither the Chairman nor the Secretary of any such association. The second party stated that in the absence of any such registered association the provisions of the Shops and Establishments Act cannot be applied in the present case and hence there would be no employer employee relationship between the first and the second parties. The second party Belayet Hussain Master is an individual shop-keeper and this employment, according to the first party, being in the post of a Night Guard could be the employment in the association of the shop owners only. There the second party Belayet Hussain Master cannot be individually liable. The case of the first party is also that he was employed by the Market Committee and the employment came through the Chairman Mr. Belayet Hussain Master. It has been stated that there was no written appointment and no terms and conditions existed. The first party stated that the pay remained at Rs. 100.00 throughout his service. It is not known whether there was any election of the association or any constitution of the association, and whether his appointment as such, was agreed upon or voted by the Association Committee, etc. However, it has been stated that the shop-keepers of the said market used to pay tolls and from this the pay of the first party came. Whether there was a collective body as an association is not correctly established as there is no registered association or constitution. However, the evidence shows that the shop-keepers jointly employed the first party. This gives the colour of an unwritten association and therefore, the first party's case also cannot be denied totally. So on this point our order has got to be provisional.
7. Two witnesses for the first party were examined and they stated that the first party worked under the Market Committee for 9 years at a fixed pay. He was dismissed or 'his services were terminated on 25-4-70. He complied with other formali--ties of law and has finally come to the Court. In that sense it appears that his services were terminated without any legal notice and he is, therefore, entitled to re-instatement. The second party has no submission on this point.
8. In the result, we conditionally allow this application on contest. No order can be passed individually on Belayet Hussain Master as the first party was not his personal servant. It is ordered that the second party Liaquat Avenue Market. Association, if there be any, would re-instate the first party within 30 days of passing this order with one-fourth of his back wages as the first party is out of his service since his verbal dismissal. There is no individual liability on the second party Mr. Belayet Hussain Master who appeared as the second party.
9. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members before arriving at this decision.