1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-These two cases have been filed by two individual workers, under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (StandingOrder) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for termination benefits.
2. The common case of the first parties is that their services. He have been terminated by the second party on the ground that they were temporary workers and that the contractual work for which they were engaged came to-an end.The two workers, the first Haider Ali (Petitioner of Case No. 16/70) being a helper and the other (Petitioner of Case No. 17/70) being a fitter, contested the submissions of the second party that the work ended. They submitted that while the work is of contractual nature it was still continuing. The second party submitted that the second party engaged them as temporary workers to work for them in installation of Air Conditioning Machines in the East Pakistan Secretariat. That work has ended in so far as the second party is concerned.
3. It appears from the scrutiny of the papers as furnished by the first parties that they were notified to that effect that the work was of contractual nature and that there was a cessation of that work for which their services became redundant and were therefore terminated. There is no doubt-that the work was of temporary nature in so far as it was connected with the work contract. Admittedly, that work was of installation of Air Conditioning Machine in the East- Pakistan Secretariat. Papers have been filed by the second party regarding the contract. The two first parties then submitted that the work is still continuing.
4. The second party has submitted althrough that in the present case section 19(3) of the Act would be applicable and these two workers would not be entitled to any benefits at all as there has been a cessation of work in the normal course. It appears that the two first parties were given 7 days' notice. From the papers submitted by the second party it appears that the work was complete: In view of all this I do not find any substance in the applications of the first parties the work being of temporary nature and they having no case for any termination benefits. Facts and circumstances indicate clearly that the work has come to an end and therefore no notice was required for terminating the services of these two petitioners.
5. Hence these two applications appear, to be mise6nceived and as such they are dismissed on contest. There is no order as to costs.
6. Members on consultation agree with my decision, above.
7. This order will govern both the cases Nos. 16 and 17 of 1970.