1. MD. ANWAR HOSSAIN (CHAIRMAN). This is applications, under section 25(1) (b), East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 for re-instatement in service with back wages.
2. Fact of the case is that the petitioner-complainant Abdur Rahman was Clerk ire the Senior Grade under the 2nd party North Bengal Sugar mills Co. Ltd. He was posted as plead office at Gopalpur and was residing with family in the Mills' quarter. On 24-2-1970 he was transferred to Krishna Farm about 9 miles away. Leaving the family and children at Gopalpur he joined Krishna Fern, on 25-2- 1970 and sent a representation for permission to attend his family tit Gopalpur every day. He got no such precision but he was leaving the Station at his will with information to Farm Superintendent.
3. On 8-61970 Store Clerk of the Farm Mr. Anil Kummar Sarkar was going on leave for one month. The petitioner was directed to take charge from him but the petitioner did not take charge on this plea or that. But all his pleas were rejected. Still when he pleaded inability to take charge by letter dated 18-6-1970 he was, by order of the Administrator The complainant-petitioner explained his position. But his explanation vas not accepted. The Board of Enquiry found him guilty. On their recommendation the complainant was dismissed from service with effect from 1-9-1970. The appeal to the authority having beer, rejected, the petitioner has come with this application Labour Court on 25-9-1970.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was not conversant with the duties of store-keeper of the Farm and so he could trot dare take charge and as such by not taking charge he did not act improperly and -his conduct could not amount to insubordination or misconduct.
5. The application is apposed by the 2nd party O. P opposes the application. Their defence is that that the complainant was never an efficient employee.His past record was not satisfactory. He was found leaving Station without permission by defying the Office Orders and ultimately when the complainant was asked to relieve store-keeper by taking charge from him on his proceeding on leave the complainant refused to take the charge. The com--plainant also refused, to vacate Mills' quarter at Gopalpur on his transfer to Krishna Farm. All these activities of the complainant were acts of insubordination and indiscipline amounting to misconduct. So he was charged and after enquiry he was, found guilty and dismissed and there is no ground for re--instatement.
6. Points for decision in the trial is:
(1) Whether under facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is entitled to re- instatement in service, FINDINGS AND DECISION We have heard evidence of the complainant P. W. 1 Mid Abdur Rahman and Farm Superintendent O. P. W. I Mr. Gurudas Ghosal. From the evidence of the complainant as well as his representation and explanation it would appear that the complainant refused in writing to relieve the store-keeper and take charge of the store from him in spite of being repeatedly directed by the Management to do so. It appears that duty of the store-keeper is not of any technical or skilled nature. The store of the Krishna Farm consists of as proved by the Farm Superintendent some Agricultural implements, fertilizer and fuel such as diesel oil, mobile, etc., so keeping charge of such a store does not require any extra-qualification or technical knowledge. Any clerk can take charge of such a store. The complainant was once store-keeper in the Navy.
7. In the circumstances the plea of the complainant has got no substance in refusing to take charge.
8. He was avoiding taking charge in the hope of transfer from the farm as he was not liking the Station for family difficulties. But, however, genuine his difficulties might be those are no grounds- for disobeying Office Orders. He was transferred from Gopalpur but he was still retaining the quarter though he was asked to vacate it. The complainant is found to have left the Station without permission, and in the circumstances if the authority charges him for misconduct and finds him guilty they are not to blame. His previous record is also unsatisfactory other words ere find no substance in this application for re-instatement under the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 and necessarily it fails.
9. The applicant, however, prays for conversion of order of dismissal to order of discharge so that he can find future employment elsewhere. As he is a family man we think this prayer could be granted but without claim for any compensation or allowance provided in case of discharge from service.
10. Hence, Members have been consulted and their opinion considered.
11. ORDERED that the application be dismissed on contest with the modification that the order of dismissal be altered to an order of discharge without however any claim for any compensation or allowance of any sort.