1970 PLP 814 (PLC)

The second party submitted a written objection in which they stated that Rashid Qudratullah was appointed as stated by him, and he was drawing a total pay of Rs. 225.00 per month. It was stated that his services were unsatisfactory. The first party ‑reverted to questionable bad conduct and the Manage ment was constrained to disallow his increment in the last part of 1969. Later the Management was‑ compelled to withdraw him from the Mill office to Head Office and later granted him 35 days' earned leave. The Management wanted to get rid of him. Thereafter they served the termination notice giving him 3 months' time. But instead of working for 3 months, he started to remain absent. So he is not entitled to get pay for his notice period. His claims are false and mischievous. The second party is willing to pay all his legal dues and issued a cheque for Rs. 162.06 on 24‑4‑1970. A supervisor is not a workman. So he is not entitled to get any benefit. Point for determination is whether the first party is entitled to receive termination benefits as provided under section 19 of the Act. At the beginning we must point out here that the learned Representative of the second party did not put stress on the point that the first party is not a worker. From the order of transfer dated 13‑12‑1969 whereby Rashid Qudratullah was withdrawn from the Mill office to the Head Office it appears that‑ he was a mere worker as his services were required to weighment. If that be his nature of job, then it may safely be concluded that he was a `worker' within the definition of the Act. Every case should be judged on its own merit and whatever designation may be given to an employee, the actual nature of work would determine whether he is a worker as set out in Law. In the present case that Rashid Qudratullah was a worker is not disputed in Court nor does his nature of work appear to dispute the b na fides of his claim that he is a worker. This being the position, the next point urged by the learned Representative of the second party is that Rashid Oudratullah started absenting from duty when the order of termination was served on him. It appears from a mere perusal of the letter that his services were terminated from that date and that the submission of the first party that he was not allowed to enter into the office from that date. It would, therefore, mean that his services were terminated with effect from that date and he was entitled to notice pay. The contention of the second party is that he should have worked for 3 months. This is clear from the perusal of the letter and further that 'Rashid Qudratallah was not allowed to work for 3 months after this period. So the argument of the second party is not at all tenable and our finding is that Rashid Qudratullah is entitled to receive the notice pay for 90 days. He is also entitled to the other termination benefits, as it is a case of simple termination. So this application is allowed on contest and it is ordered that the first party be given termination benefits as follows‑ (a) 90 days' notice pay. (b) 9 days' leave pay as claimed by him. (c) Arrear pay fur 27 days for the month of January .1970. (d) Compensation at the rate of 14 days' pay for 3 completed years of service. (e) Ad hoc relief for the months of March to June 1.969 at the rate of Rs. 27.50 and for the months of July to September 1969 at the rate of Rs. 3.87. (f) Provident Fund contribution of the first party being Rs. 225.00. The second party is directed to calculate and deposit the amount in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of passing this order. Members, on consultation expressed their opinion in favour of granting termination benefits to the first party.