1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-These two cases have been filed by the two first parties against the same second party 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 parties, according to the serial number, of applications is that they were Manager and Security Officer respectively under the second party Hotel Inter-Continental, Dacca, since the time of their employment and had been doing their works very satisfactorily till the time of their termination of services arbitrarily and illegally by the second party. They were not given due notice and legal benefits as provided under the law and, therefore, there is a case for re- instatement to their former. posts with back wages since they have not been given any opportunity to defend their position.
3. The second Party filed written objections in both the cases stating, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable since the two first parties were employed in the category of officers being Manager and Supervisor respectively attached to the managerial and administrative unit of the' Hotel administration. They were provided with all the facilities and privileges as were given to officers under the second party's administration. AS such, they cannot claim any benefit under the provisions of the Act as they are not workers as defined in the Act. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction and these employees 'have no locus standi to file these cases which should be thrown out. Otherwise, they have been given all legal facilities and benefits as provided in the law.
4. Point for determination:
(1) Whether the services of the two first parties have been terminated illegally?
(2) What relief, if any, are the first parties entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Points 1 and 2.-Both tile cases have been heard at length in presence of both the Members and the second party produced all related papers. It was emphatically stated that the first party Shah Fazlur Rahman was appointed as the Assistant Manager and he was doing the administrative, managerial and supervisory functions of an executive which could alone be performed by a Manager and that being in such a position he was not a 'worker' and, therefore, he does not come within the purview of the Act. The other first party Imdad Ali Diwan was the Security Officer and he was the guard-commander of other security personnel working under him. He was working in supervisory position doing managerial work and that being, the position, he was not a worker. It was stated in both the cases that they have been given all facilities that could be given to the officers under the second party. Some white cards were produced by the second party which show that they were given dining facilities in the dining room, Chambeli room, Coffee shop, etc., which are given to the officers only. They also attended .the meetings of the managerial officers under the Inter-Continental Hotel administration. It was further stated that they enjoyed better pay facilities which were given to the officers under the second party. From a close analysis of their duties and functions as they have detailed in the plaint and in the written statement, by their submissions, etc., we cannot but come to the inevitable conclusion that these 2 first parties were not 'workers', but were exercising those administrative and managerial functions and powers which are enjoyed by managerial officers. This being the position, we find that the v are supervisors and managers as may be the case, and therefore, they cannot be termed as 'workers'. The Act only embraces within its fold the workers as defined therein and no facilities under the Act could be given to the officers who are either supervisors or managers as stated above.
6. Therefore, the cases of the first parties are not maintainable and it may be held that this is not the proper forum for ventila--ting the grievances of the first parties, Hence no relief can be given to these two first, parties.
7. It is, therefore, ordered that the case of the first parties ha dismissed on contest.
8. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members white arriving at this decision.
9. This order will govern both the Cases Nos. 340 of 1969 and 26 of 1970.