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, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.'
2. The case of the first party was that he was appointed as Accounts Assistant on 1-12-56 and worked under the second party up to 31-7-b2. He then resigned in pursuance of the Company and then he was re-appointed as an Accountant on 1-6-63, at a monthly 'pay of Rs.300-00. Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Manager and he worked as such till his services were terminated on 28-2-70. He was drawing a pay of Rs. 480-00 as basic and Rs. 96-00 as house rent at the time of his discharge. His prayer is for termination benefits. The second party contested the case by filing written statement wherein they stated that the first party was not a worker and his job, was of managerial and supervisory nature. He cannot claim any benefit under the Act. He has been given benefits as be is entitled to under the service rules of the company. The Labour Court is not the proper forum for him.
3. Point for determination is whether the first party is a If worker' and whether he is entitled to any benefits under any provisions of the Act.
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION It appears from .the first party's own statement that he was working-as, an Accounts Assistant. He was persuaded to resign. But we find a clear gap of 10 months in between his resignation on 31-7- 62 and taking up his fresh employment on 1-6-63 as Accountant. Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant Manager on 23rd of' February .1969, that is long before the Act came, into operation. So it cannot be said that with a view to avoid the mischief of the Act the second party devised a procedure that is, to give a better designation to the first party such as the Assistant Manager. He was appointed an Accountant on 1-6-63 and subsequently he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Manager. Other papers have been filed in Court to show that he was acting as the represen--tative of tire Company in different places. In this connection the letter No. E-2/361, dated 16-7p64, issued by the first party to the Executive Engineer, C. & B., another letter to the same Engineer being letter No. EB-1,/518, dated 11-3-65, another letter to the same party being No. EB-.1/508, dated 26-2-65, one mctor vehicle registration signed by him, one invoice form signed by him, one letter written to the Adamjee Insurance signed by him on behalf of the Company and other letter written to Ashugonj Project, etc.; Shaw that he was representing the Company as Assistant Manager. His last pay A all inclusive, was Rs. 576'00. His pay also shows that ht N was holding a much- senior, post than that of an Accountant R ,So it appear that. he does not fall within the category of p `worker' as he performed functions of managerial and super- Advisory nature. In view of this, the point is determined as above and we find that 'the first party is not a `worker' within rs the definition of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be given to him.
5. Members on consultation, agree with my above decision.