1971PLC29 (PLP)

The second party is a construction firm under the name and style of Messrs Gammon (East Pakistan) Limited, which was working at the Steel Mill Site at the relevant time. Further case of the first party is that he was in continuous service and that he used to be transferred from one establishment to the other during his service and he was a permanent worker and he is entitled to re-instatement, or termination benefits as the case may be. The second party filed written statement, wherein it has been stated inter alia that he second party is a construction firm and that the first party was employed verbally on daily wages basis as a temporary worker. He was a Muster Roll worker and used to take his daily. wages on signing the Muster Roll. The work of the company which was for a limited period ended in January 1968 and accordingly his services were dispensed with. Thereafter, the second party got another task under the Kobe Steel Ltd., in the Chittagong Steel Mill site and he was re-employed on 29-4-68 and the first party was absent without leave from 29-1-69 to 4-2-69 and the second party instead ,nf dismissing him, granted a certificate by discharging him from services. P. W. 1 Kazi Md. Hashem, the first party, is examined and cross-examined on ;oath. He- stood by his above averments and submitted that he was on daily wages basis and at last his daily wages were Rs. 6'

00. He used to take his payment on signing the Muster Roll and used to enjoy the holidays and Sundays, etc., without wages. Re has submitted the release certificate, which shows that he was. a Time Keeper for nearly 4 years. He has also submitted two otter papers showing that he was transferred from his earlier Project to Agrabad Workshop of the second party. The first party wanted to show that his service was transferable and he was a permanent worker under the second party, though he was a daily-rated worker. It appears from the document that he was a permanent worker and he used to be transferred from one Project to another Project. As against this, the contention of the second party is that he was re-employed. But his case is that he was transferred to the other establishment and he was used to be transferred previously also. Now, the position is that the second party is a construction firm, but the first party used to be transferred from one temporary Project to another and thus he was, ipso facto, on the status of a permanent worker, though all the conditions of his employment were not in conformity with the establishment. He was not given any leave with pay, or allowed to enjoy any holiday with pay. Be that as it may, it appears that he was in continuous service and-was a permanent worker under the second party. From the written statement of the second party it appear that the second party wanted to dismiss him on some charges, but these charges have not been brought home by an enquiry as per provisions of the Act (sections 17 and 18). Therefore, it can at best be termed as termination simpliciter and as such, he is entitled to the termination benefits under section 19 of the Act. I have consulted the learned Members, who are present in Court. They have concurred with me in my findings above. That the first party would get termination benefits as follows: (1) 45 days' notice pay at the rate of Rs. 6.00 per day; (2) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' wages for 4 (four) years ; and (3). 30 days` leave salary at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per day. The amount shall be deposited in this Court by the second party in favour of the first party within 30 days from today.