1. MD. NURUL ISLAM. KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, hereinafter, referred to as the Act; made by one Shahidullah with a prayer for directing the second party to re=instate him to his former post with all back wages.
2. The case of the first party was that he was working under the second party since October 1963. He was on medical leave, with effect from 5-4-68, and the leave period was extended up to 8-4-68.
3. On 10-4-68 the first party went to the Chief Medical Officer of the second party with prayer for further extension of the medical leave, but the said Officer did not extend his leave. The first party went to the Chief Medical Officer of the Mill on 12-4-68 and he prescribed medicine for the first party. After his recovery the first party went to the Chief Medical Officer on, 18-4-68, but as he was absent the Officer-Incharge gave tire first party a fitness certificate with which he went to join his duties. But the first party was not allowed to join to his duties. and was asked to see the Labour Officer. The Labour Officer handed over to hint a charge-sheet, dated 15-4-68. He submitted his explanation on 20-4-68. Thereinafter he received a notice, dated 20-4-68 informing him that an enquiry would be held on 23-4-68 at 10 a.m. He received another notice, dated 23-4-68 from the second party informing him that the enquiry would be held on 25-4-68 at 10 a. m. On 25--68 the first party duly appeared before the enquiry officer who asked the first party a few question and then, asked him to go away.No witness was examined on either side on the said date of enquiry in presence of the first party. Thereafter he received the dismissal order, dated 27.-4-68. He submitted a grievance petition by registered post with A/D. The second party asked the first party to appear before him on 15-5-68, at 4 p. in. by a letter-dated 8-5-68. But the first party received the said letter on 18-5-68 and immediately saw the Labour officer who handed over to him a letter; dated 17-5-68. By this letter the earlier order of dismissal was confirmed.
4. The second party entered into appearance and submitted all papers relating to the enquiry. It transpires from their submissions and argument that the first party went on medical leave from 5- 4-68 to 8-4-68. He did not resume his duties though the workers of the mill suddenly went on an illegal strike, with effect from 6-4-68. The Mill was closed for Muharram Holidays on 9th and 10th April 1968 and when his prayer for medical leave was refused, he was to resume his duties on 11"4-
68. This he did not do. The strike was called off with effect from 15-4-68 and some of the workers joined their duties on that day and finally on 18-4-68 all the workers joined. The first party did not even join on duties- up to 18-4-68 when charge-sheet was drawn up against him. He was charged for joining the illegal strike: An enquiry was held wherein witnesses were examined and he was given chance to defend in the enquiry. He was found guilty of misconduct for which he was dismissed: -Even in reply to the grievance petition he was told to appear, personally during another enquiry, to be held. But he did not appear willfully. Thereafter the earlier order was confirmed. All legal formalities have been; observed in this case and there is no scope further. The applica--tion may be dismissed.
5. Now in the present case we have heard the arguments and submissions of both the parties. It is admitted by both the parties that after charge-sheets were drawn up an enquiry was held for his alleged offence of joining the strike. The first party submitted that the strike was illegal and for that the second party instituted E. L. Case No. 99 of 1968, and permission was granted by the Court under section 18 (7) of the Act to dismiss 140 workers But the first party was not included in this list.
6. In the present case it appears that a separate enquiry was conducted against the first party. His case is a little bit peculiar as he went on leave from. 5-4-68, and it is submitted that he later joined the strike though his leave expired even after the inclusion of the holidays on to 10-4-68. We have seen from the scrutiny of the papers and from the sub: missions of the parties that a formal enquiry was held after the first party was charge-sheeted for committing misconduct as he joined the illegal strike. After he submitted the grievance petition, he was again told to appear before another enquiry body for his personal hearing, but he did not appear. So it appears that the whole proceedings were legally and properly conducted.' This being the position, the first party knew his own shortcomings and he then made a false allegation in the application that. it was he alone who was asked questions by the enquiring officer on 25-4-68 and that no other witnesses were examined. It seems that the first party was aware from the very beginning that his case has no leg to stand upon, and that is why he concocted a false case in the Court. This would be clear from his petition submitted on the date of hearing that is; on 27-5-70 while his representative submitted by wanted to examine witnesses on behalf of the first party. It, was found on hearing " the argument and submissions of the parties that there was no scope for adducing, evidence as the papers give a complete case. While the oral evidence was considered to be redundant for the, purpose the first party even then insisted adducing oral evidence and the prayer was rejected. Now it appears from the submission of the first party and from the petition that he now admitted that 3 witnesses were examined in the proceedings though he stated in his original application that no witnesses was examined. The first party was also admittedly examined during the proceeding. We find no necessity of re-acting the drama that was very properly acted during the disciplinary Proceeding conducted by the second party. Nothing new could have come out of it except the falsehood of the first party. He has clearly been exposed by his petition and submission before this Court. The doctor for whom he made a special case, was examined during the proceeding. Burt the first party went on to say that he did not sign the statement of the doctor. If the doctor was examined in the same proceeding thefirst party could not but have to sign the statement of the doctor as the same was done in the same sitting. further obtained the signature of the first party who has, at this stage, started signing his name as `Shahidullah Chowdhury instead of Shnhidullan' though the application and its" copies bear- his signatures as `Shahidullah'. We have further notices that he signed all the papers before the second party Shahidullah'. This he did when he was shown his signature in the statement of the doctor. Admittedly the first party was not bed-ridden during his so-called illness. He was suffering from scabis in his hands as submitted by his representative.
7. When there was- a strike in the Mill and his leave expired on 10-4-68, he should have joined on 11- 4-68 positively: This he has not done. He has only tried to take chance of his so-called leave taken earlier and the fact that in E. L. Case No. 99 of 1968 though permission was accorded by this Court to dismiss 140 of his co-workers he was not included in the list. Thus we find that the proceedings were legal and valid. He was given all Opportunities as he was entitled to under the law. He now has submitted a false case in this Court. The case is rather has old as it has been filed in 1958 and that is why he and his representative could not mark the discrepancy that they had earlier committed in the copies of the application before this Court.So it appears that the first party has no case at all.
8. Members have agreed with my above decision when they were consulted.