1. K. HOSSAIN, J.-This is a petition by Messrs Hafiz Jute Mills Ltd., challenging the order of the Second Labour Court, East Pakistan at Chittagong passed on the 16th of February 1968, re-instating a worker Amir Hossain of the petitioner-Company. The worker Amir Hossain, according to him, was appointed on 11-11-66 as a Weaver on a monthly salary of Rs. 120 and he served for six months when he was suddenly discharged by the Company. Against this order he filed a grievance petition with the employer-company which made no response and then he filed an application under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employ--ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The objection of the petitioner-Company before the Labour Court was that Amir Hossain was appointed on 24-1-67 as a casual worker on daily wages of Rs. 3, that on 25-5-67 there was a complaint against him by the Head of the Department of the weaving section that he was habituated in disobeying the orders of his superiors; that he is also reported to have misbehaved with his Line Sarder on that date and that previously he had a dispute with the Darwan outside the Mill area for which he was verbally warned. On receipt of complaint on 25-5-67 Amir Hossain was directed to see the Manager and when he came into the Manager's room, he was asked to explain his conduct whereupon he began to howl and shout and was summarily dismissed by the Manager. Amir Hossain was paid his dues amounting Rs. 51.71 paisa in full and final satisfaction of his wages and other claims: The learned Labour Court, on a consideration of the facts and the evidence led before it found that the worker had made a proper grievance petition before the employer which was received by him within the period provided for in law and that his application before the Labour Court was maintainable. It also found that the worker was a temporary worker and since he was dismissed without any show-cause notice, he was entitled to the relief.
2. Mr. Ruhul Islam, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner has contended that the finding of the learned Labour Court that be was a temporary worker is not justified as it is not covered by the definition of temporary worker under the Act. The definition of the temporary workers as given in section 2 (s) of the Act is as follows: " (S) `temporary worker' means a worker who has been engaged for work which is essentially of temporary nature and is likely to be finished within a limited period;"
3. "(c) `Casual worker' means a worker whose employment is of a casual nature;"
4. The learned Labour Court has found that the employer did produce the Attendance Register of January 1967, to show that the first party, namely, Amir Hossain was working for the last six days of the month of January 1967, but they have withheld the Attendance Register of November and December 1966, and for this withholding of the papers the learned Labour Court found that the worker was appointed by the petitioner-Company from 11-11-66. This finding being based on some evidence and a proper presumption drawn from non-production of material documents, the finding of the learned Second Labour Court is justified. The learned Second Labour Court has also come to a finding that he was a temporary worker at a daily rated wages of Rs.
3. The basis of its finding is that the worker was found to be in continuous employment from 11-11-66 for more than six months and only thing that was found regarding his casual nature was that his wages were Rs. 3 per day. The contention of the petitioner-Company that during the period of trial production no worker was appointed on permanent basis was accepted and accepting that the learned Second Labour Court came to the finding that in that case the worker might be treated as a temporary worker. This finding fits in with the definition given of the temporary worker.
5. Mr. Ruhul Islam has assailed this finding by saying that the conclusion is not correct as when he was paid a daily wage of Rs. 3 he should be taken as a casual worker. The definition of a casual worker cited above does not show that mere payment of wages on daily basis makes a worker casual unless there is any evidence to show that either his employment is of a casual nature or his work is casual in nature. In the absence of any such evidence and in the face of a finding that no permanent appointment was made during the trial production the basis of the finding of the learned Second Labour Court that the worker should be treated as temporary worker must be upheld. Admittedly the worker was dismissed without any show-cause notice and this .Is in violation of section 18 of the Act. There bang a violation of the provision of section 18, the only remedy that can be given to the temporary worker is reinstate--ment which the learned Second Labour Court has done and no grievance can be made on that account.
6. Mr. Ruhul Islam has criticised the judgment of the learned Second Labour Court to the effect that the re-instatement has been given to the worker on the ground that he was found to be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Union. He challenges this without any basis. In this writ petition all that the petitioner has challenged is that the worker is not an Officer of a registered Trade Union and that the Company was not aware of any Trade Union of the employees of the petitioner-Company nor any such Trade Union has yet been registered under the East Pakistan Trade Unions Act. From this assertion of the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner is trying to take shelter upon certain legal stand denying factual existence of a Union: The petitioner's case is that it is not a registered Union.
7. It may be stated that the learned Second Labour Court no where found the worker to be the Vice- President of a registered Trade Union. In any case, nothing turns on this as it has already been found that the only relief that can be given to a temporary worker who has been illegally dismissed is re-instatement. So, this additional reasonings given by the learned Second Labour Court do not affect its conclusion in any way. That being the position, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Second Labour Court.