1. MD. NURAL HUDA (CHAIRMAN): This case arises out of an application under section 25(l)(b) of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965. The first party petitioner Syed Mazharuddin Ahmed alleges that he was a Sales Representative on a monthly salary of Rs. 400.00- under the second, party, Messrs Pakistan Paints Limited, Chittagong. The first party joined service on 1-1-1969 and was rendering satisfactory service under the second party, but suddenly on 14- 10.1969 the services of the first party were terminated arbitrarily and illegally. The petitioner then submitted a griev--ance petition on 23-10-69, which was received by the second party on 25-10- 69, but the second party did not reply. The first party now prays for termination benefits as scheduled in the application.
2. The second party challenges the maintainability of the application and contends that the petitioner took loan from the second party and also some advances, but was unwilling to refund the loan as stipulated. There was thus a quarrel between the first party and the second party and the first party deserted the service under the second party.
3. The fact remains that the petitioner is no longer in the service of the second party. The second party published a notice in a paper showing that the petitioner Mazharuddin has no connection with the second party from 14-10-69. The relevant date of termination of service is the same as mentioned in the application of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted a grievance petition and that was received by the second party. We are in the dark as to what the second party said in reply to the grievance petition. In the grievance petition, the petitioner alleges to have claimed some benefits, while the second party does not supply any copy of reply to the grievance petition, they have bled some papers showing correspondences over a loan said to have been taken by the petitioner. The loan, if any, taken by the petitioner from the second party is not a matter for adjudication by us. The second party may file a suit in proper Court. We are concerned with the removal of the petitioner from service and to see whether he is entitled to any benefits.
4. Froth the materials before us we are not inclined to hold that the petitioner willingly gave up the job under the second party, rather for some estrangement of feeling between the parties, the services of the first party have been done away with by the second party.
5. Now the question is-whether the petitioner is a worker.
6. The petitioner is a Sales Representative of the Pakistan Paints Limited. According to the definition of worker in the Standing Orders Act, 1965, a person employed in trade promo--tional work for hire or reward is also a worker. Definitely, the work of a Sales Representative is of a trade promotional nature. The petitioner was a paid employee of the second party. There is nothing to see that the petitioner had any managerial or administrative capacity. Therefore, the petitioner is held to be a worker. That being our finding and as the petitioner has been removed from the service, he should get termination benefits. As the petitioner was in service for over 10 months we may treat him as a permanent employee.
7. Both the Members agree in giving benefits to the petitioner.- The petitioner will accordingly get the following benefits from the second party
(1) 3 months' pay in lieu of notice-Rs. 1,200.00 ;
(2) 14 days' salary as compensation-Rs. 186.00 ; and
(3) 13 days' salary for the month of October 1969 Rs. 167.00.
8. The second party do pay up the above amounts to the first party petitioner within one month from today.