1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appli--cation under section 25 (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter mentioned as the Act, by Md. Liakat Ullah, ex-permanent Supervisor in the Finishing Department of the 'United Jute Mills Ltd., Narsingdi, Dacca, either for re-instatement in service with full back wages or in the alternative, for termination benefits as permissible, under the law.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed a Supervisor in the Finishing Department of the United Jute Mills Ltd., Narsingdi, under the second party with effect from 11-2-66. To his utter surprise his services were termi--nated with effect from 11-9-69 by a letter handed over to him by the second party at the close of the day's work on 10-9-69. This action of the second party was mala fide and was in fact a dismissal in the garb of termination. It was in utter violation of the provisions of section 19 of the Act and other relevant provisions. He has, therefore, claimed termination benefits or re-instatement with back wages and other legal dues.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing written statement wherein it was stated, inter alia, that the first party was employed as a Supervisor in supervisory duties and that he was a managerial staff and not a workman. Further, his case being pending before the Martial Law Authority. no action does lie in this Court. The first party was appointed a Supervisor on the basis of a contract and he was governed by the terms of the said contract which was an appointment letter. The termination order was in accordance with the term No. 4 of the contract, and that the order was passed legally. .
4. One witness each was examined from the two sides and docu--ments were admitted from both parties without any objection, Members were present.
5. The point for determination is whether the first party Liakat Ullah is a worker, and if so, whether he is entitled to any relief. ?
6. Now regarding this point the parties adduced oral evidence to prove the specific defence of the first part. The admitted fact is that the first party was appointed under the second party at first as an apprentice supervisor and then his services were confirmed after six months. He was drawing a monthly pay of Rs. 125.00 and his last pay was Rs. 210.00. In term No. 4 of the appointment letter it was stated that after completion of the period of probation his services would be terminable by one month's notice on either side. The second party now claims that the services of the first party was terminated as according to this term. It is admitted that he was not guilty of any misconduct, insubordination, etc., and that he completed the period of probation. The only point raised by the second party is that the first party is not a worker and that he was employed in a supervisory capacity and as such; an employee of the managerial order. It was further said that his case is pending before the Martial Law Authorities. Whatever may be his case before the Martial Law Authorities it appears that the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 is in force and that after complying with all the procedures of section 25 of the Act he has come to this Court for termina--tion benefits and that his present case has no clash with his any other application preferred before the Martial Law Authorities. As such there is no question of clash and hence this application is maintainable and within the jurisdiction of this Court and the Act.
7. Point for determination is whether the first party is a worker or a Supervisor and whether he is entitled to termination benefits.
8. FINDINGS AND DECISION We have taken oral evidence of the parties. The first party claimed that he is a worker. Admittedly he was working inside the jute Mills. D. W. 1, Jafar Ahmed who is the Executive Officer of the second party admitted that the first party was a skilled Labour and a technical hand. The first party claimed that he used to do both manual, technical and supervisory work inside the mill and he used to do all his work standing. He said that his duty inside the Mill was to check production, take measurement of bags, check practically the sewing, etc. No worker worked under him. The word 'supervisor.' was a misnomer in his case. Overseer is to supervise his work. He said that he did not run any machine, but he used to do all his work physically. In cross--examination he said that there was calendering, sewing, measuring, placing, and cutting machines inside the Finishing Department where workers operated those machines. He used to run from one machine to another to see whether there was any defect in. the output. He used to do sewing with his own hands, even had to carry bags from one place to another. He claimed that he did not supervise the works of the Head Sardars. He said that he used to carry notes almost every day as was the requirements M of the work. D. W. 1, Jafar Ahmed claimed that he had no U knowledge of the working of the Jute mills as he was working p, in the Head Office, though he claimed that P. W. 1, Liakat D Ullah was a Supervisor who was supervising the work of the Department: He, however, said that his work was technical in nature. D. W. 1, further said that in the appointment letter it was mentioned that the Company reserved the right to 1s change the Designation from time to time as they might deem fit.
9. He finally said that he did not know the real nature of work of the first party: Now it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the first party was connected with the actual working of the Finishing Department inside the Jute Mills in the mechanised process work. He was looking after the work at one stage. '1 `here is division of labour in such mechanical process. Only because he was termed as supervisor it cannot be said that the first party was not a manual worker as said by him. If bysimple designation even when a man is working as a manual and technical worker, he could be termed as supervisor, then the designation would only overshadow the real nature of the work. So the term `supervisor' in the present case appears to be a misnomer. The first party was actually doing one process of the work inside the mill. He was a worker as his work was one of technical, manual and, partly of supervisory nature. But this supervision is not of managerial nature but was of `supervision of the production. This was one stage of the division of-labour in the production of the firm. In. reply to his grievence petition the second party replied that he was an officer and not a worker. To us, it appears that this was a misconception and misinterpretation of the actual work done by the first party. From the oral evidence we are satisfied that the first party was a manual-cum-technical-cum-supervising worker. He is a 'worker' in the full sense of the term, and therefore in this case the provision of sections 25 and 19 of the Act would apply.
10. His services were not terminated due to any fault of his own. He is entitled to full termination benefits if he is not re-instated to his former post with all back wages. As for unknown and hidden reason the company has found it fit to terminate his services; we do not want to thrust him upon the second party who may be vindictive if this is so done, and try to find fault with him at every stage in case of re-instatement. Therefore, we think it fit to give full termination benefits.
11. Accordingly, this application succeeds. It is hereby ordered that an' award be given in favour of the first party with the following benefits- .
(1) The first party should be given 90 days' notice pay in liep of notice at the rate of Rs. 210.00 per month.
(2) Compensation at the rate of 14 days wages for every completed year of service or for any part thereof in excess of six months, that is, 56 days' compensation for 4 years' service,
(3) Unpaid salary, if any, to be reported by the second party.
(4) Unavailed of leave pay, if due, to be reported by the second party.
(5) Providentfund with employer's contribution rind interest.
(6) Proportionate fixed bonus up to the date of termination.
12. The second party is directed to calculate the award amount and deposit the entire amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order.
13. On consultation of the members--- they have given written opinion to the effect that the first party was in fact, a worker as he was doing the works of a worker and he should be given the termination benefits under section 19,of the Act.