1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an applica--tion under section 25(1);6) of tie East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 -which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is; that he was appointed as an 4pprenace medical representative on 15-5-1969 at a monthly pay of Rs. 150,00 plus Rs. 4.00, per working day for his conveyance while' working` in the market during probationary period. On 15th August, 1969 the first party' completed the probationary period of three months. But with some ulterior motive the second party deprived him of the lawful scale by extending the so-called probationary period up to 15th November 1969 most arbitrarily and most whimsically. Then again his probationary period was extended up to December 1969 The probationary period was again extended up to 31-1-1970 though the second party issued a letter of appreciation to the first party on 15-10-1969. All on a sudden the second party then terminated the services of the first party with effect from 1-2-1970 which the first party received on 13-2-1970. The first party sent a representation for redress of his grievance which was sent on 26-2-1970 and the second party received the same on 27-2-1970. The second party neither replied to the said letter nor redressed the grievance of the first party. The first party, has now prayed for directing the period beyond first. three months as a period of permanent Service and during which, his pay was raised. He claimed Rs. 300.00 for the month off August 1969 and, Rs.
3. 450.00' for the rest few months. He further claimed for compensation for 14 days and notice pay for 90 days and also for leave salary.
4. The case of the second party is that the period of probation was extended by the second party and that the services of the first party were found unsatisfactory and hence his services were terminated during his, probationary period. He was not a permanent worker and as such he is not; entitled to any benefit.
5. Points for determination : -
(1) Whether the first party was a. permanent worker
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION Point 1. In the present case it appears that the first party was appointed as an apprentice for the post of medical repre--sentative initially for a probationary period of three months. It was stated in the appointment letter that under a very special circumstance the period could be extended by another three months. In three letters dated 13-9-1969, 27-9-1969 and 20-1-1970 the second party informed the first party that be could not ensure the minimum sale expected by them as a representative. In all these 3 letters his period of probation was extended on this plea. Ordinarily as he is not a clerk, his probationary period could not be more than 3 months. But if we treat his services as of a skilled worker as his services were of trade promotional nature, it may be said that according to the Act his services could be extended beyond the period of first three months by another 3 months only. Probationary period of a clerk could not, however, he extended beyond the period of six months. In that view the probationary period of any one of the workers such as -skilled worker or a clerk or an unskilled worker could not be extended beyond a period of 3 months. It is admitted that the first party was appointed on 10-5-1969 and his services were finally terminated on 13-2-1970. So there was a total service length of more than 9 months in the present case. If he is to be treated as a skilled worker as I am inclined to hold, the period of probation could be only for a period of 6 months. As such, we find that the first party who worked for more than 9 months automatically became permanent worker by the operation of the statutory provision of law.
7. Point 2.-It appears that by a letter dated 15-10-1969 the second party Management eulogised the good services of the first party. But in and around this period, from three other letters we find a contradictory position. This is that the Management was also not happy at the very same time regarding the performance of the first party. This is really a very contradictory position. In the letter of termination of services also the second party has stated that his services so far as the promotion of sale was concerned, were not very satisfactory and that he was a losing proposition to the second party for which reason his services had to be terminated. So we have found that the second party has contradicted himself by issuing these letters. So the reasons assigned by the second party for termination of the services of the first party are not at all satisfactory and therefore the first 'party is entitled to receive all the legal benefits as we have found that- he is a permanent worker.
8. In the result, the application succeeds: It is hereby-ordered that the second party shall pay full termination benefits to the first party as follows:
(i) Notice pay for 90 days.
(ii) Compensation for 14 days.
(iii) Difference of salary actually paid after the period of 6 months and the salary to which he is entitled after the com--pletion of the probationary period of six months.
9. The second party shall calculate and deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of this order.
10. I have consulted the members who in their written opinion agreed with my decision given above.