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, which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, filed by the first party Sultan Ahmed Khan, with a prayer for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages.
2. The case of the first party is that he was appointed as a Booking Clerk on a monthly pay of Rs.
3. 235,00. He was charge sheeted by the second party on 3-7-69 and the first party replied to that on 8-7-69 with a prayer for enquiry. The second party did not hold any enquiry. On the other hand, he was served with a termination order with reasons on 23-8-69. He submitted his grievance petition on 9-9-69, but there was no reply. Hence being aggrieved he filed this application.
4. At first the case was decided ex parte. But later in a application under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C., the earlier; nr was set aside and the case was restored to its former file and number: The second party has now filed a written objection wherein it has been stated, inter alts, that the Labour Court has no, jurisdiction to entertain this case inasmuch us the IWTA regulatory body and 'not an industrial or commercial establishment. It was stated further that the allegations were false lid frivolous. The substantive case of the second party was that to first party was appointed on 3rd July 1967. He was working at the Sadarghat Terminal. On 28-6-69 at 12-30 p.m. the Accountant Mr. Zahirul Haque with Mr. Rahmatullah, the L. D. Clerk paid a surprise visit to the terminal and in course of their inspection they found that the Booking Clerk indulged in T various mal-practices contrary to the administrative instructions.
5. Accordingly the Port and Traffic Officer, Dacca Port, charge sheeted him and he was put under suspension. The first party submitted his explanation on 8-7-69. Thereafter a full-fledged enquiry started against him. Thereafter a full-fledged enquiry was held in which the first party was also examined and his statement was recorded along with statements of other witnesses. On a careful consideration of the entire matter the Port Officer found that the charges were fully substantiated.
6. Instead of taking drastic measure of dismissal or discharge, the Port Officer took a compassionate view and terminated the services of the first party on 23rd of August 1969. In the facts and circum9tances of the case, the first party should have been dismissed from service. But considering the fact that dismissal would debar him from future employment in Government offices and autonomous bodies his services were terminated. All legal formalities were complied with. The first party was given proper opportunities to place his case. His dues were cleared. The first party had no I genuine grievance and as such the second party could not comply with his request. The activities of the first party were prejudicial to the interest of the authority. Continuation of his services would demoralise and corrupt other employees of the authority. Hence this application shall be dismissed.
7. Points for determination in this case are: -
(1) Whether this application is maintainable?
(2) Whether the order of termination of services of the first party by the second party is legal and valid?
8. FINDINGS AND DECISION Point No. 1.-It has been argued by the learned counsel of the second party that the IWTA is not an industrial or com--mercial establishment, but a regulatory body. Whatever may be the functions of the IWTA, as defined in the Act, it appears that in the present case that the EPIWTA has been working as a commercial establishment. They erected terminals and in the terminals they engaged employees including the first party who sold tickets for the sake of earning money for the authority. Commerce means selling or buying goods for the purpose of making profit. It has not been explained to us whether by selling tickets through the Booking Clerks and managing the terminals- thereby the EPIWTA earned profit. In this absence of any such explanation the clear fact is that the EPIWTA was working as a commercial establishment at the terminals. It further appears that the first party worked as an instrument in such a commercial establishment in selling tickets to the members of the public. His services appear to be connected with the commercial affairs of the EPIWTA. It may be that primarily the second party is a regulatory body. It 'may, very well, have some commercial establishments too as it appears from the present case. Therefore, it is not po3cible to hold that the EPIWTA is a regulatory body and not commercial establishment. In so far it relates to the utilisation of the services of the first party, it appears to be very much of a commercial establishment. Hence we cannot hold that the point advanced by the learned counsel of the second party stands. The point is accordingly decided.
9. Point No.2.-The second party held the position that in a disciplinary enquiry the first party was found guilty for misconduct, -but his services were very kindly terminated. The first party has stated that this termination was, in fact, an order of dismissal in the cloak of termination of services. We would, therefore, like to find whether there was a proper enquiry into the charges. It appears from the allegations that the first party was found selling old tickets and he also sold tickets without stamping. The second party has sub muted in Court a standing order of the EPIWTA that no booking clerk should sell unstamped tickets. They have further alleged that for his own illicit gain the first party was selling old tickets when he was caught red handed by some officers of the EPIWTA as stated in the written statement. It appears from the order of the second party, dated 3- 7-69; that the first party was placed under suspension from that date - for two offences as they have alleged. He showed his cause by the 10th of July 1969. The second party has alleged that thereafter an enquiry was arranged when-the first party denied the charges.
10. From the scrutiny of the papers we find that there was no proper enquiry. Only some statements were taken from the persons concerned including an Ansar Platoon Commander who, on the other hand, stated in his statement that there was a clash between the said Accounts Officer and the first party. Whether this is over sharing of something is not known to us and we find that there was no enquiry in so far as there was no chance of cross-examination of the witnesses, no enquiry officer was appointed and no enquiry report as such made from an enquiry proceeding. Even after the grievance petition was served there was no enquiry and no personal hearing was afforded to the first party. Hence this proceeding has been vitiated by illegalities.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed on contest brut without costs. The so-called order of termination is set aside and the se-and party is directed to re-instate the first party to his former post with all back wages and other legal dues within 30 (thirty) days from the date of passing this order.
12. Members on consultation agreed with toy above decision. .