1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the applicant Shahabuddin Sarker is that he was appointed under the second party at first on probation for a period of 3 months with effect from 7-10-68 as a supervisor. This period of 3 months was later extended by another 3 months and he completed this period. Later his service was terminated on 26-7-69 after giving him one month's pay He sent grievance petition to the second party on 6-8-69. The second party by their letter dated 15-8-69 communicated to the first party that' he could not satisfactorily complete his probationary period. So his services were not confirmed. He was treated as a temporary supervisor and that according to the terms of the appointment hit services were terminated legally.
3. This case was at first filed in the 3rd Labour Court and later on re-allocation this case was sent to this Court for adjudication. The first party appears to, have filed this case in the 3rd Labour Court on 5-9-69 and later it was registered in this Court on 28-2-70. The second party has filed written objection wherein it was stated, inter alia, that he first party, was not a workman, he was a supervisor and so he does not come with in the purview of the Act, and that he was bound by the terms of the contract as found In the appointment letter, that his services were not confirmed and he was a temporary worker. It was further stated that his termination was Point for determination is whether the first party is entitled to receive any benefits under section 19 of the Act. It appears from the submissions of the parties that the first. party was appointed with effect from 7-10-68 as a supervisor, in the United Jute Mills Ltd., as a probationary supervisor at first for a period of 3 months. Then his probationary period was extended by another 3 months. His services were finally terminated on 26-7-69. He has worked for more than 9 months. The second party has said that he was not a worker. But it appears that he was not entrusted with any decision-making power or duty.. He was neither a manager nor a supervisor of the duties of others in the sense of a Manager or an Administra--tive Officer from the side of the employer. The word `supervisor' is a clear misnomer in this case. It has no significance at all. He was an ordinary worker as he was put on a training for a period of 6 months. It appears from the provision of section 4 of the Act, that as a skilled worker he could at best be on probation for six months, and after that period when he was allowed to continue his work it may be presumed that he was automatically confirmed in his post accordingly. So he may be called a permanent worker. This point being established we now turn to the point whether he was bound by any special terms of contract as stated by the second party. He received the appointment letter in which it was stated that after the completion of the probationary period his services would be terminable by one month's notice by either party. But no terms and conditions laid down by any industrial or commercial concern could be inferior to the legal provisions as prevailing in. the country. Section 3 of the Act has clearly prescribed for this. The relevant provision of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act is as follows- "3.---(1) In every shop or commercial or industrial establish--ment, employment of workers and other matters incidental thereto shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of this Act .
4. Provided that any shop or commercial or industrial establish--ment may have its own rules regulating employment of workers or -any class thereof, but no such rules shall be less favourable to any worker than the provisions of this Act."
5. So it appears clearly that there is no force in the argument of the second party. Though a permanent worker his services were, not terminated after giving him due notice as provided in section 19 of the Act. Further, he was not given a hearing of under section 25(1)(a) of the Act by, the second party. So there was an infringement of law also. The view of all these there was illegal termination of the services of the first party by the second) party and that he was not given lawful benefits.
6. In view of the circumstances alleged, we find that it would not be congenial for the first party if he is re-instated to his former post. So we are in favour of giving him termination benefits as per provisions of section 19 of the Act, Accordingly the applicant be allowed, In the result, the application of the first party is r allowed on contest but without costs, and an award is passed in favour of the first party granting him the following termination benefits.
7. Rs.
(i) 90 days' notice pay in lieu of notice at915'00 the rate of Rs. 305 per month: (ii)Arrear wages for 26 days of July 1969255'80 at the rate of Rs. 305 per month.
(iii) Compensation for 14 days144'33 Total: 1,315*13 The second party is directed to deposit this amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from this date.
8. Both the members present have been consulted with and they agree with my above findings.