1. AWARD MD. NURUL HUDA, (CHAIRMAN): The petitioner M. A. Shahid Tarafdar was appointed as a Sales Executive under .the second party Sirefa 'Chemical Industries on a monthly salary of Rs. 300.00 with other amenities. The 'petitioner joined his service on 2-6-69,. He was, however, discharged on 10-8- 69 and it was communicated to him on 13-8-69. He submitted grievance petition on 26-8-69. But the second party did not reply to that. The petitioner has now come before this Court by an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders)
2. Act, 1965, for reliefs under the said Act praying for arrear pay for the term- of his service, compensation for unfinished term of contract and for 3. months' notice pay.
3. The second party did not appear, though notified. The point which engages our attention is whether the petitioner is a worker as defined in the Act, and whether he is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition.
4. DECISION His service was of a contractual nature. The minimum period of contract for service is, 3 years. Both the. Members are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to his wages for the un--finished term of the contract. I have, however, grave doubt as to whether such a relief can be granted to the petitioner under the Act.
5. The very designation of the petitioner connotes that his work is of administrative ormanagerial nature. Besides the pay, the contract of service envisages provisions for a car to the employee free of charges. His own deposition shows that his works are of supervisory nature. In my view, he is an employee falling under the exception (ii) of section 2(v) of the Standing Orders Act 1965. So, I hold that he is- not a worker as defined under the Act. This I arrived at after further consideration. Even if, conceding for argument sake that he is a worker under the Act, it is not clear, whether his appointment was permanent. It may be mentioned that a minimum period has been fixed in the contract. The said period is, 3 years. The petitioner did not put in service for more than 3 months. So, under all canons of interpretation, he is a temporary worker, if at all he is a worker cinder the definition of the Act. Section 19(3) of the Act provides for reliefs for the termination of a temporary worker, There is nothing, but one months notice pay is mentioned. The petitioner has claimed compensation on the basis of the contract, at T4 the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month from 11-8-69 to 1- 6-1972. For v, the violation of the contract his relief is not here under this Acts. It is elsewhere in different form. Standing Orders Act does not contemplate any such relief.
6. For the reasons stated above I disagree with the opinion of the Members and in view of what I have stated above, I hold the at the petitioner is not entire;.(: to an,' of the, reliefs as claimed by him in the application. So, the application stands rejected.