1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--These two cases have been filed under section 25(4)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the same first party Ali Ahmed against the same second party -regarding the same subject-matter: The first case (Case No. 23/70) was filed after the first party was charge-sheeted and suspended for some act of misconduct, by the second party. Later when an enquiry was held anti -the first party was dismissed for misconduct, he filed thesecond case.
2. The case of the first party is that he was a permanent worker under the second party till 6-11-1969 on which date the Manager of the second party Mr. Ghulam Martuza verbally dismissed the first party from his service and turned him out of the factory through the darwan. He has stated that he was called by the said Manager and told to withdraw his case from the Labour Court which was pending on behalf of their Union. If he failed to do so, he was told to resign. He was then told to sign a paper containing his resignation which he refused to do and so he was turned out from the- factory by the darwan. He sent a grievance petition on the same day. But the second party sent him a charge-sheet on some baseless allegations. He then filed the first case in the Court as his grievances were not redressed. His prayer was for re-instatement to his former post with all back wages.
3. When the first party was dismissed after a show of enquiry, he submitted his grievance petition by registered post on 30-11-1969. The second party sent him a reply on 7-1-1970 which being unsatisfactory, he filed the second case with the same prayer.
4. The second party entered into appearance and denied the allegations of the first party by filing a written objection. It was further alleged that the first party was guilty of misconduct for which he was charge-sheeted and suspended with effect from 5-11-1969. He then refused to accept the charge-sheet. His explanation dated 17-11-1969 was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was duly held and the first party was present in that enquiry. But he refused to cross-examine the witnesses and also to put his signature in the evidence sheets. Thereafter on finding him guilty of misconduct the second party dismissed him from service.
5. Point for determination in the present case is whether the first party has been illegally dismissed, and what relief, if any, the first party is entitled to.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION The parties have been heard at length in presence of the members. The first party's case at this stage was that he was not given the proper chance of cross-examining the witnesses and so he did not put his signature in the deposition sheet. He has admitted that he was present at the time of enquiry. But he has not stated in his grievance petition nor in his plaint that he was nor, given this opportunity. He, however, stated in his last grievance petition that his words were not properly recorded. As about his case that he was told to withdraw, a labour dispute case from this Court or to resign he could not produce any independent witness to prove his contention. On the other hand, it is admitted that he is not an office-bearer of the Union nor was he who filed the said case, if then be any, and therefore the allegation that the Manager would tell him to withdraw the case has absolutely no force. He was just pan ordinary member of the so-called Trade Union and he could not be treated as being more responsible for any labour dispute case filed tit the Court than any other ordinary member. It does not stand to reason that of all other workers, an ordinary works like him should be selected by the Manager for withdrawing a case from the Court for which he had no competence. It therefore, appears that he has given an improbable and impracticable story against the second party. It appears that there was a charge-sheet and he refused to accept the charge-sheet in time from the hand of the second party and later he appeared at the time of enquiry, but refused to co-operate in holding the enquiry. Some witnesses have been examined to prove the offence of misconduct brought against him. He has himself chosen not to cross-examine these witnesses. These witnesses were admittedly the co-workers of the first party and if produced they are not supposed to give a different story. The first party has not produced any witness so far in the Court to support his contention. On the other hand, it appears that all the procedural formalities were complied with by the second party in holding the enquiry against the first party.
7. In view of this, I find that the offence of misconduct has been proved against the first party in the domestic enquiry and the first party, did not wilfully avail of his procedural right in the said enquiry.
8. The first case is a misconceived one since this case originated soon after the first party was charge-sheeted and he was suspended from his work. This could not be any ground for grievance since the enquiry against the first party was not then concluded and no substantive action was taken against him. So the first case does not at all stand in the eye of law. As about the second case, I have already found that the offence of misconduct has been proved against the first party in the enquiry and he has been dismissed by the second party after complying with all legal formalities.
9. In the result, the cases are dismissed on contest but with--out costs.
10. I have duly considered the written opinion of the members at the time of giving my above decision. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.