1. MD: NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This is an applica--tion under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed Senior Medical Representative by the second party on 10-6-68 at a salary of Rs. 600.00. On his successful completion of the probationary period he was confirmed with effect from 1-9-69 with an increment of Rs. 50.00. Due to his meritorious service his salary was raised to Rs. 750.00 per month. He was further granted a local traveling allowance of Rs. 250.00 per month plus daily allowance of Rs. 35.00 while the first party would be on tour out of Dacca. He became a member of the Provident Fund and started contribution to the said fund since 1-9-68. On.10-9-69 on returning home from his normal official duties he got a registered letter dated 4-9-69 sent to him by the second party whereby his services were terminated, with effect from 8-9-69. A cheques of Rs. 393.05 claiming to be in full and final settlement of all his duties was attached to this. He sent a grievance petition on 16-9-69 claiming termination benefits of Rs. 4,610.62. But the second party denied his claim. Hence this petition.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement in which it was stated; inter alia, that the petition was not maintainable, that it was barred by limitation and that for the ostensible reason that he was a Sales Supervisor, he is riot a 'worker'. The second party has no establishment in East Pakistan and that the first party was the only person in Past Pakistan under the second party which has its office at Karachi, and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. The petition is frivolous, vexatious and designed to harass the second party for .no reason. The second party advise the first party that he would be entitled to a further sum of As. 492-76 if he returned the properties of the Company which has been entrusted with him.
4. He was not entitled to any bonus; his provident fund contribution would be paid to him after the matter was settled by the Trustees of the said fund. The second party forwarded under a cover by a letter, dated 15-12-69, the additional amount of Rs. 492.76 to the first party.
5. Points for determination in the present case are: -
(1) Whether this Court, has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
(2) Whether the first party is a 'worker' according to the Act?
(3) What relief, if any, the first party is entitled to?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION All the points are taken up together for the sake of conve--nience. The first party was examined as P. W.
1. He admitted that the Head Office of the Company is at Karachi and that he was the senior- most officer here at Dacca and that there were other officers junior to him. He further stated that he was confirmed as Sales Supervisor. As about the jurisdiction of the Court he said. That the second party has a god own at Dacca, but he was not in any, way related to the godown. Later it transpired that the said godown was nothing but the stockist's godown. So it appears that the second party had no establishment in East Pakistan except the first party here as their representative. He stated that he used to draw his own tour programme and used to send it to his Karachi office. He then said that he had no office here but he used to work from his house. It clearly establishes that the second party had no establishment here in East Pakistan. There were, other junior officers who were termed as Sales. Representatives. In any case, it appears that they were also being controlled from Karachi Office. It appears that as the second party had no office or establishment in East Pakistan even if it is found that the first party is a worker as defined in the Act, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this application under the provisions of the Act.
7. It further appears that the first party was not a 'worker' at all as defined in the Act since he working as a sole represen--tative of the second party in East Pakistan and as he wits the Sales Supervisor to supervise -the sales of- the second party. He was further, the representative of the second party regarding the sale organisation in East Pakistan. Whatever he might have said describing his functions, and denying that he was not allowed to Supervise, to appears on the whole, that his work is not of clerical, technical or of unskilled or semi-skilled nature, but of managerial and supervisory nature. In view of all this he is not found to be a worker also.
8. For the above reasons, I find that the first party cannot claim any relief in this Court with the present application..
9. Hence the application of the first party is rejected on contest, but without costs first party is rejected on contest, but without costs.
10. Members on consultation agreed with my decision above.