1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRRMAN). This is an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, made. by one Md. Obaidul Islam, a former-Assistant Engineer of the Second Party for termination benefits, etc. The case of the first party was that he was employed under the second party since 7th July 1969, at a monthly pay of Rs. 6,50'00. Later his pay was raised to Rs. 700'00 on 20-2-70. He was working as an Assistant Engineer of Ashuganj-- Jamalganj Contract. On 31-3-70 he was informed at Kishoreganj that his services would not be required on and from 5-3-70. Thereafter by another letter, dated 8-4-70 he was informed that his services would stand terminated with immediate effect. He was offered one month's notice pay. He sent a grievance notice on 17-4-70 and in reply to that the second party agreed to give him salary up to 14-4-70. The first party now claims that he was a permanent worker under the second party and that he was dismissed under the cloak of termination of services and that he should be given termination benefits as a permanent worker is entitled to.
2. As against this the second party entered into appearance and filed a written statement in which it was stated, inter alia, that the first party was not a worker, that there was no proper notice and that he was a temporary worker as the work against which he was employed was a contract work of temporary nature and that his probationary period was a mistake and that he was not entitled to receive any benefit as a permanent worker. He was a temporary worker and was given due benefit.
3. The application should be dismissed with costs Point for determination is whether the first party is entitled to receive any benefits under the provisions of the Standing Orders Act.
4. The second party has produced the contract, which is known as the Ashuganj-Jamalganj Contact.
5. They have also produced the appointment letter, of the first party and it appears that he was employed against that particular contract as an Assistant Engineer. It, therefore, appears from the definition provided in the Act, that the nature of the work was temporary and as such, it was, argued that the first party was a temporary worker. The second party has argued on the basis of section 2(s) of the Act showing that the work against which the 'first party was employed was a temporary nature and as such, he could not be a permanent worker. There is, however, a clause in the appointment letter, which shows that the first party was to be on probation for a- period of 2 months. On this point the learned, lawyer of the second party clarified that according to the provision of section 21 of the Contract Act the mistake portion is unforceable. It is unworkable and void. Therefore, it appears that the first -party was a temporary worker, in spite of clause No. 4 of the term of appointment Letter. This being, the position it- appears that under section 19(3) of the Act the benefits of termination were offered to the first party and there is no hitch on 'this point. In view of-this I dismiss this application.
6. In the result, it is ordered, that the case be dismissed on contest but without costs.
7. Members on consultation agreed with, my above decision.