1971 PLP 456 (PLC)

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑This is an appli cation under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The case of the first party is that .he was appointed as an Office Assistant with effect from 1‑11‑63, at a monthly pay of Rs. 1,000.00. While he was discharging his duties satis factorily, he suddenly received a termination notice from the second party on 14‑1‑70 stating that his services are no longer required from the next day. This being the position he sent a grievance notice in which the second party gave a reply stating that though he was termed as Office Assistant, he was, in fact, General Manager and later they gave him a certificate of service mentioning him as an Office Assistant. Being aggrieved he filed this application before Court for full termination benefits. The second party's representative made submissions stating that the first party was an officer of the managerial cadre and therefore, he cannot lay any claim as a worker is entitled to under the Act. The application should be dismissed. Point for determination: (1) If tile first party is a worker? (2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to? Points 1 and 2.‑The first part has produced his appointment letter in which it was clearly stated that he was appointed as an Office Assistant. The salary mentioned is of course a little bit high. But it cannot be said that one cannot have a pay of that amount in a commercial firm. After' the grievance petition was submitted, the second party replied to him by again men tioning that he was an Office Assistant and this time they said that he was in fact, General Manager. It is extremely difficult to identify an office assistant as General Manager, It is admitted that the second party is a well‑reputed company with considerable good business and it cannot be a fact that they lack any experience in distinguishing between two posts that is, General Manager and office assistant. Later in pursuance of the grievance petition they gave the first party a service certificate mentioning him as an Assistant Manager. This is another contradiction revealed by the second party. For all these contradictions it appears that for their own convenience the second party shifts their ground too often. Therefore, they cannot be believed at all when they have clearly mentioned that this is a case of termination. The first party, according to his appointment letter and according to other correspon dence and connected papers established himself to a member of the clerical staff'. He is entitled to termination benefits' to which a permanent worker is entitled under the provisions of the Act. He has been given one month's notice pay. Therefore, he should get the rest of the benefits. The application is, therefore, allowed, on contest and the second party is directed to pay full termination benefits to the first party. The amount shall be deposited in Court within 30 days from the date of passing this order, in favour of the first party. The amount shall be as follows: (i) Notice pay for remaining 60 days at the rate of Rs. 1,000 p. m. Rs. 2,000.00 (ii) Compensation for 14 days for one completed year of service Rs. 466.66 (iii) Unavailed of annual leave salary for 20 days Rs. 666.66 Total Rs. 3,127.32 I have consulted the written opinion of the Members in arriving at the decision.