1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KFAN (CHAIRMAN).-All these 4 cases have been filed by 4 individual workers under section 25 (1) (b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labaur (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the same second party.
2. All these four cases were heard together and would be disposed of by the same judgment.
3. The case of the first parties is that all these first parties wereemployed as Welders 4 years back on a daily wages of Rs. 5.00. They had been working most faithfully and efficiently. But the second party most illegally and arbitrarily dismissed the first parties by their letter, dated 17-11-1969, in the first two cases and by letters, dated 15-11-1969, its the last two cases. Being aggrieved they sent grievance petitions to the second party-in the first 3 cases on 19-11-1969 and in the 4th case on 2- 12-1969. The reply they received was vague and unsatisfactory. Hence they filed these cases with prayer for re-instatement to their former posts with all back wages and other legal dues.
4. The second party filed a written statement in Complaint Case No. 333 of 1970 and in other 3 cases they have not filed any written statement. In the written statement the second party denied all the allegations and further it is stated that the daily wages of the first party in Case No. 333 of 1970 was Rs. 5.50 from 1-9-1969 till the date of dismissal and not Rs. 5 00. The first party was in the habit of neglecting his duties. On 4-10-1969 the first party was on duty at A D.A. Piling Site and was asked by the Site Engineer to receive equipments and stores necessary for his work at the commencement of his duty and to return the expended portion including scraps of consumable materials to the stores at the close of his duty. The first party was told that it was necessary for maintaining correct record of stock of materials at the store at site. But the first party refused to the said order.
5. Accordingly, the Site Engineer submitted a complaint to the Head Office on 4-10-1969. The second party, on the basis of the complaint issued a show-cause notice on the first party on 6-10-1969 and he was put under suspension on the same day. The first party on 8-10-1969 replied to the show- cause notice. But as his reply was unsatisfactory, an enquiry committee was constituted to enquire into the charge on 22-10-1969. In the proceedings before the enquiry committee the first party was present and' the witnesses examined by the second patty was cross-examined by the first party.
6. The, first party, however, did not examine any witness although opportunity was given to him to do so. The enquiry committee submitted its report to the second party with its finding that the charge against the first party was proved and he was found guilty of misconduct. The second; party examined the report and the proceeding and after applying their mind thereto were satisfied and the first party was found guilty of misconduct and he was dismissed from service with effect from 15-11-1969. Therefore, the allegations of illegal and arbitrary dismissal is false, baseless and unfounded. On receipt of the grievance petition the second party gave a personal hearing to the first party. His whole case was re-examined, but 4 was nothing to consider, he was the intimated accordingly.
7. The case of the second party in the 3 other cases are also the same as submitted during the arguments. This being the position, the points for determination in these 4 cases are:
(1) Whether the orders of dismissal passed in respect of these 4 workers are legal?
(2) What relief, if any, are the first parties entitled to?
8. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points would be dealt with together for decision for the sake of convenience.
9. In the case of first party Abu Taher in Case No. 330 of 1970, it appears that he was directed to show cause within 4 days on charges of misconduct, such as, disobedience of the order of the superior and that he replied denying the charges. In the enquiry that was held be, however, went back from his statement and said that no such order was given to him. Thereafter an enquiry was held and in the enquiry witnesses were examined against him. He also cross-examined the witnesses. But no witness was adduced from his side. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct and submitted his report accordingly. The employer considered the report and passed an order of dismissal. When he submitted grievance petition he was given a chance of hearing. Then his case was considered and the employer decided not to review the case.
10. In the Case No. 331 of 1970, the second party on the same charges directed the first party Abdul Motaleb to show cause within 4 days and that he replied denying the allegations. The first party was told to appear before an enquiry committee. Before the enquiry committee he contradicted his own statement given in the reply to his show-cause notice and said that he was never told to draw replacement of the stores after depositing the ends of the consumed materials. The enquiry committee held the enquiry and found him guilty o--- misconduct for wilful disobedience to the order of his superior. Thereafter he was dismissed by the second party, to receipt of his grievance petition he was given a personal hearing on 2-12-1969 and on consideration of his case again his prayer for re-instalment to his post was rejected.
11. In Case No. 332 of 1970, the first party Abul Hashem was told to show cause within 4 days on the same charge as in the case of 3 others that is, wilful disobedience to the orders of the superior. He denied to have disobeyed the order of his superior in his reply. Thereafter 'an enquiry was held. But he did not appear before the enquiry committee on the appointed date. So his case was decided ex parte against him. When he submitted his grievance petition he was told to appear on 2-12-1969 for a personal hearing. On consideration of his case the second party employer could not review his case in his favour and communi--cated the decision to him.
12. In Case No. 333 of 1970, the first party was told to show cause within 4 days on the same ground. In his reply he denied the charges. An enquiry was held by the second party. He contradicted his own statement thereby saying that no such order was passed on him. The enquiry committee went forward and found him guilty of misconduct. In pursuance of the report of the enquiry committee he was then dismissed. His case was then considered after his grievance petition and the employer failed to a view his case.
13. It, therefore; appears to us in the facts and circumstances that the cases of all these 4 workers were duly considered by the second party according to law and all, legal formalities were complied with. So as the 4 first parties were found guilty of misconduct, the second party was within their legal limit to take disciplinary action for such misconduct. So on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the order passed by the second party are legal and, therefore, we cannot interfere in their such orders. No relief, as such, can be given to the first parties.
14. It is, therefore, ordered that all the 4 applications be dismissed on contest but without costs.
15. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members before giving my decision as above.
16. This order will govern all the 4 Cases Nos. 330, 331, 332 and 333 of 1970.