1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is a application tinder section 25 (l) (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 a permanent salesman in the second party's shop for the last 6 years and was drawing a salary of Rs. 75 per month. He was in great need of money and requested the second party to pay his salary for the month of May 1970. But instead of payment the second party became angry with him and verbally dispensed with his service on 31-5-70. He sent a grievance petition on 2-6-70. But the second party did not reply the same. Hence he filed this case to the Court with prayer for directing the second party to re-instate him to his former post with all back wages.
3. The second party contested the case and said that the first party was a domestic servant and not a worker as could be covered under the Act. He was never formally appointed. He used to do domestic work, bring food for the owner and his employees in the shop. His grievances are imaginary, false and frivolous and the application should be dismissed with costs.
4. Points for determination:
(1) Whether the services of the first party were orally terminated by the second party?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenient discussion.
6. The first party examined himself as the only P. W. in this case. He also produced a copy of the grievance petition along with the postal receipt that the same was sent by registered post. The only point of contention was whether the first party was a domestic servant or a worker covered under the Act. The first party stated that at one time he worked casually under the second party as he used to go home at times, and started his regular work in the shop of the second party since Ramazan last, that is, December 1969. He was given food and board plus Rs. 75'00 per month as a salesman. He used to sell different commodities as were available in the second party's shop He mentioned some of the items s4ch as ghee, dalda, white oil, oil, paper, alta, powder, ovaltin, horlicks. etc, He-gave a detailed account of the prices of some of the commodities and also men-- tioned the names of other salesman numbering about 9 engaged in the shop. He also described the other neighbouring shops quite accurately. He stated that as he could not work on a particular closed day, and the owner Mr. A. Rahman dismissed him being very annoyed with him. His grievance petition was not replied to which further lends credence to his story. The second party had no reply to give to this as he did not earlier controvert the first party's position that he was a worker and his services were verbally terminated without observing any legal formalities. He denied that he worked as a domestic cook. In this particular case there is no appointment letter and this is a small shop. In such a shop a worker who is given food and board, does not mean that he was not a salesman. By giving exalted details of his work the first party has been able to prove beyond doubt that he was a regular salesman since last Ramazan that is, December 1969. So he was a permanent worker as he worked for more than six months. It is admitted that before this he was not a regular worker. He also admitted that he was illiterate. He further admitted -that before Ramazan last when he took regular employment under the second party, he worked in other shop also. This shows his lack of continuous employment under the second party and might have been at one time worked as a domestic servant. But there is no bar to become a regular worker, under the same employer if he is so employed. For all these reasons stated above, I find that the first party was a regular worker under the second party and his services were illegally terminated by the second party without payment of any dues for the notice period.
7. The case is, therefore, allowed on contest and the second party is directed to pay the first party termination benefits, I do not like to pass an order of re-instatement since it has transpired that the business of the second party has slackened.
8. In view of the consideration that the first party used to get free board and food plus Rs. 75.00 per month, I determine the cash value of the free board and food at Rs. 40 per month and as such the total wage comes to Rs. 115'00 per month. Thus the first party is entitled to get notice pay for 90 days at the rate of Rs. 115 per month amounting to Rs. 345 and other legal dues. As the first party did not complete one year's service he is not entitled to any leave salary. But he is entitled to get compensation for 14 days amounting to Rs. 53'67.
9. The second party is directed to calculate and deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order.
10. I have considered the written opinion of the members while giving my above decision.