1971 PLP 220 (PLC)

From the evidence of Dr. Md. Akram Hossain it appears Officer and his duty was to look after the patient of the Mills and his evidence further is that he was not appointed on contract base and he did not execute any agreement. His contention further is that he had no Administrative of Managerial capacity in the discharge of his duties Opposite-party examined one witness but he had no knowledge about the service condition of the complainant as he was appointed only the other day. No agreement of service has also been produced by the tad parry. But it is contended by the opposite party that the complainant was an Officer and he was a Member of officer Club and all Officers are appointed on contract basis. In support of this contention O. P. relies on admission of the petitioner. It appears that for sometimes ‑the petitioner was a Member of Officer's Club. But there is no document to prove that he gave agreement while entering into the service. Some copies of some correspondence are there in the record to show that there was some contract for service but in the absence of the originals those copies are inadmissible in evidence. It was again submitted by the U. P. that original agreement is with the civil Court of Natore in, connection with a suit by the complainant over termination of service. But the judgment of the court in case No. O. C. 192 of 1970 dated 22-6‑1970 shows that there was a suit for injunction against eviction from Mill quarters and in that suit no originals but some copies of some agreement of service was filed. The above discussion shows that even if the complainant petitioner was an officer and appointed on contract, the Warms and conditions of the contra: i are not known in thy absence of the contract itself. A worker has been defined in the Act to be any Member of the Establishment whether skilled, unskilled, manual, and technical, trade promotional or clerical but does not include any person having Managerial or Administer live capacity. So the question of an Officer is practically immaterial. The complainant is a technical hand for trade promotion having no Managerial or Administrative capacity and so he is a worker and such the application is maintainable. It war however, submitted that the petitioner had some Administrative function over his compounders anti he also had the Administrative capacity over patients in the matter of passing their medical bills. But there is no evidence on this point. On the con trary, .the complainant submitted that he has no control over, the compounders he has no authority in passing medical bills. A any rate in the absence of evidence oral or documentary we are not satisfied that the complainant had any Administrative or Managerial capacity. So the complainant is a worker and the application is maintainable. The complainant is not a surplus hand and there was no necessity for dispensing with his service. The allegation that there were complaints against the petitioner and his service was not satisfactory is a valid ground for discharge or termination of service. But in that case charge is to be framed and petitioner be given opportunity to defend But no such ground has been set forth. Even is has not been asserted therein that the service was terminated in the terms of service condition.. On the contrary, notice; pay for one month has been offered as per custom and rules of establishment. So on question of appointment by contract or termination in terms of contract at all arises. In the circumstances we reiterate our decision that the complainant petitioner is not an Officer appointed on contract but he is simply a worker for trade promotion. Point No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant. Point No. 2. ‑Although the application is challenged as barred by limitation there is no substance in the contention. The petitioner's service was terminated on 8‑6‑1970. He filed a grievance petition within stipulated time on 14‑6‑1970 and he sent the, complaint on 13‑8‑1970 and it was received or! 15‑R‑‑1970. So the application is in time. The point be decided in favour of the complainant. Point No. 3.‑ Petitioner's service has been terminated with notice pay .for one month. In the absence of the agreement for service, section 19 of the Act would govern termination of Employment. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to benefits under section

19. Proviso to section 25(1) (b) barring a complainant has got no application as the petitioner has been deprived of all the benefits given under section

19. It may be here mentioned that the complainant did not in his evidence insist in re‑employment and rather prayed for termination benefit under section 19 Any worker deprived of benefits of termination can come under section 25 and it is immaterial whether he is a member of a Registered Trade Union or not. So the fact that the complainant is not a member of any Registered Trade Union is immaterial. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to 3 (three) months' notice pay and 14 (fourteen) days' wages for every completed year of services, confirmed as he was, under proviso sec tion 19(1) of the Act. Hence That the application be allowed on contest in part. Petitioner is entitled to termination benefits under section 19 of the Employ ment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act as discussed in the judgment. Opposite party is directed to calculate and make the payment within one month of Order. Members were consulted and their opinions were taken.