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, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was employed under the second party at different times as driver and lastly on 17.9-1969 at a monthly pay of Rs. 225.00. He had to work hard that is, from 7 a. m. to 2 p. m. at night. When demanded overtime wages and house rent the second party became angry and annoyed with him. In the evening of 13-5-70 while going from Dhanmondi Residential Area to Beauty Cinema at Mirpur, an altercation took place between Mr. I. S. Sayid and the first party. The driver was ousted from the car and on the following day he was ousted from the quarter also. Thereafter he sent a grievance petition. He received a reply which was unsatisfactory. Hence this petition in Court with a prayer for termination benefits.
3. The case of the other party as could be found from the correspondence by which the notice of this Court has been returned to this Court, is that the first party driver was the domestic servant under employment of the wife of the owner Mr. I. S. Sayid and that as he was not an employee of the Company, he does not come within the purview of the Act. Hence this -case is not maintainable and should be dismissed.
4. The case as such, has not been contested by the second party. It was heard ex parte. The driver Md. Nazamuddin was examined in Court. He gave a detail story about his employment under the second party at different times. In discharging him from time to time and again re-employed him.
5. It appears that the driver also at different times adjusted with such tactics of the second party.
6. Finally he was employed under the second party on 17-9.69 at a monthly pay of Rs. 225.00. But according to his own statement he was working from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the night. He demanded appointment letter and house rent allowance. There was an altercation and then he was driven out of the house of Mr. 1. S. Sayid. Now the second party has taken a position that the first party was a domestic servant of the wife of Mr. I. S. Sayid and that Mr. I. S. Sayid had nothing to do. But it appears that Mr. I. S. Sayid was the appointing authority; he was the Managing Director of the second party Company and that the car belonged to the Company. The papers produced by the first party also show that he was appointed by the second party Company and given a scale of pay, etc., and as such the presumption goes in favour of the first party that he was employed under the second party as also this time. As the second party has taken a plea that the first party was the domestic employee of Mrs. 1. S. Sayid which is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case, the case was heard ex parte in absence of the second party who refused to come to the Court under the above cloak which has been proved untenable.
7. We, therefore, find that the first party was a permanent worker under the second party and that his services have been terminated illegally without giving him due service benefits or proper notice. He is, therefore, entitled to all the benefits of section 19 of the Act as a permanent worker.
8. Hence it is ordered that the case be decided ex parte and the second party be directed to pay the following termination benefits to the first party within thirty days from the date of this order: (1)90 days' notice pay in lieu of notice at the rate Rs.of Rs. 225.00 per month 675.00
(2) 14 dayscompensation at the rate of Rs. 225.00 per month.105.00 Total: 780.00 The Members on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of the termination benefits and submitted their written opinion accordingly.