1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application 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 party is that he was a permanent worker as tailor under the second party since long. But the second party terminated his services, with effect from 26-2- 69 after telling him verbally at 5 p.m. on 25-2-69. He was not given any termination benefits. His grievance notice sent to the second party on the following day under registered cover was not replied to. Hence this petition for termination benefits.
3. The second party filed written statement wherein 'the allegations of the first patty were denied. It was contended that there was never any case of dismissal of any worker in the factory during the long period of 5/6 years. The first party served under the second party, but at one time voluntarily left. He had the habit of long absence and thus he used to case employment. The second party gave him employment a several times while he returned back from his long absence. He dis-- appeared on 8-3-68 and thereafter again came for employment on 14-10-68 when he 'was re- employed again. At the time of his so-called verbal dismissal he had only 5 months' service to his credit.
4. Point for determination is whether the services of the first party were verbally terminated as stated by him and whether the first party is entitled to any relief.
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the first party. The first party stated in his evidence that be was employed under the second party since August 1965 at a daily wages of Rs.3-10-0 annas till his services were terminated on 25-2-69. He further stated that his grievance petition was not replied to and that he was obliged to go away on threat of punishment by Lutfar in a Rahman, the foreman of the Company. When these allegations were drawn up by the first party he was cross- examined on the point and he said that he did not know if there was any other complaint against the employer from the workers. He denied that he went away 2/3 times leaving his job voluntarily and when he turned up he was again re-employed by the second party. He denied that he absented from 8th March to 13th October 1968. The second party showed a paper in which he authorised one Ali Azam to draw his wages in his absence, but the first party could not surely say, if he signed that paper. Attendance Registers were produced by the second party. But the first party in his deposition stated that the employer maintained 2 registers and when he asked any question he was told to mind his business.
6. Another witness Abdul Jalil also said that he was a worker of the second party. But he was turned out from the factory 11/2 months back. He made a similar allegation that the second party turned out the first party and he further stated that the first party never left his job without permission. On the other hand, he made an allegation that on, the date of his giving the evidence he was called by the foreman and was told to resume his duties. He, however, expected that he would be re-instated to his post. Now in cross-examination his witness stated that Abdul Hashem brought him to give evidence and so he could not go and resume his duties: Now it seems that he is more interested to give evidence in Court in favour of Abdul Hashem than to resume his duties. He could not say how long the first party worked in Sewing department or Tube department. The-- financial position of the Company, he stated, is not good. Previously there were 500/600 workers. But now there are only 7 workers. He said that there is competition between the rubber products and plastic products, but the rubber, products failed in competition. So, the second party was forced to close the factory. So, from this evidence it is clear that the financial posi--tion of the second party fluctuated so much so that he had practi--cally to close down the operation in due course. One may say that the factory has been practically closed as it could not stated the competition of other products in the market: A factory which once employed 500/600 workers could not be said to have been running, with only 7 workers now. But as P. W. 2 says, that he was thrown out of employment only 11 months back we cannot be sure whether the first party was thrown out of employment due to retrenchment or his services were just terminated. What-- ever that may be, the case between the two, She minimum the first party could get is the retrenchment benefit. But the second party denied this to him on the ground that he had no continuity of service and that lastly his services were only for 5 months. The case of the first party regarding continuity of service appears to be doubtful. As such, as claimed by the second party 'we can at best say that he was a permanent worker with about 6 months or less than six months' service to his credit. In that view of the case, according to section 12 of the Act, he is not entitled to any her retrenchment benefit.
7. In the result, the application of the first party is dismissed on contest, but without costs.
8. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.