1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-All these seven cases have been filed under section 25 (1)
(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, against the order of dismissal, by the first parties, the order of dismissal having been passed by the second party on the ground of misconduct. The first 4 cases according to serial were heard on 26-6-1970 and the rest 3 were heard on 11-7-1970. The evidence in these cages were adopted for all the 7 cases as facts and circumstances of the cases according to the parties were same and similar and the charges framed against the first parties are common. So the cases would be disposed of together by the same judgment.
2. The first parties were appointed on different dates as workers under the second party.
3. In Case No. 354 of 1969 the first party Bachu Mia was appointed as a painting helper in December 1965 and the last pay drawn by him was Rs. 75.00 per month. In Case No. 356 of 1969 the first party Abdul Rashid Mia was appointed as a pressman in 1956 and his last pay was Rs. 85.00 per month.
4. In Case No. 358 of 1969, the first party Md. Amin was appointed as a dice fitter in 1958 and his last pay was Rs. 160.00 per month. In Case No. 359 of 1969 the first party Md. Younus Mia was appointed in April 1966, drew last pay of Rs. 110'00 per month. In Cases Nos. 360/69, 361/69 and 362/69 the first parties Md. Sultan, Dolai and Abdul Wahab were appointed in December 1965 and November 1961 respectively and they drew last pay of Rs. 75.00 and Rs. 120,00 per month respectively.
5. Their further case is that in order to safeguard their interest and to ventilate their grievances the workers of the second party establishment formed their Union or. 23-3-1969. The Union was registered on 24-7-1969. They submitted charter of demands to the Deputy Director of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Dacca Division on 24-5-1969. Conciliation started, but it ultimately failed on 11- 7-1969. These actions of the workers caused resentment in the mind of the second party who illegally retrenched some of them and ultimately on 20-10-1969 at about 10-30 a.m. pushed cut the remaining workers out of the factory and illegally locked the same. The authorised representatives of the workers including the first parties submitted another dispute on 21-10-1969 to the Joint Director of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Dacca Division against the said illegal lock-out. On the other side, the second party in order to shield his illegal lock-out concocted false story of riotous behaviour and issued charge-sheet dated 29-10-1969 to all the workers including the first parties.
6. The charge-sheet was duly replied to by the first parties. Thereafter the second party dismissed the First parties on 30-10-1969. There was no enquiry to establish the charges which were categorically denied. No chance was given to the first parties to defend themselves. Grievance petitions were submitted. The second party replied to the grievance petitions directing the first parties to remain present at the time of the enquiry. When the first party went to the factory at the appointed time they found to their utter surprise, nobody appointed to hold the enquiry. The second party did not communicate their decision on the grievance petitions to the first parties. Hence the first parties approached the Court for redress of their grievances. They all prayed for re-instatement to their former posts with all back wages.
7. The case of the second party in all these cases is that all these workers were unruly, disobedient and incalcitrant elements. While the second party on securing the direction of the Martial Law Authorities retrenched 4 workers, the workers in a body refused, to leave, the factory, held a meeting inside the premises and one of the workers called the Manager Mr. Osman inside the factory to listen to them. As he went there, they closed the factory door and beat him mercilessly as a result of which he became senseless. Considering that he was dead, they left the factory. Mr. Osman Gani was removed to the hospital. The workers were charge---sheeted for riotous behaviour and misconduct. They did not turn up in the factory. Their replies were found unsatisfactory and accordingly they were dismissed. A criminal case is also pending against them as F. I. R. was lodged by Mr. Osman. In such conditions the workers were even given a second chance for hearing when they submitted grievance petition, but they failed to turn up, and so the earlier orders dismissing them were confirmed. For all these reasons their applications should be dismissed with costs.
8. Points for determination in the present case are ;
(1) Whether all these first parties were dismissed illegally?
(2) What relief, if any, are the first parties entitled to?
9. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenient discussion and decision.
10. The first parties did not adduce any oral evidence .in this case. The second party examined two witnesses-one being Osman who is the factory Manager. The other witnesses Mr. Hashmatullah is another Manager of the factory. Other papers have been produced by the parties in support of their respective Contentions. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses of the second party that there was a retrenchment and consequent of this retrenchment there was a worker agitation.
11. As about the particular incident, the Manager Osman said that he was called inside the factory and surrounded by the workers who assaulted him. He named one Tofazzal, Wahab, Dolal, and Mofizul particularly. Among these persons named, I find only Dolal and Wahab among the first parties. His further case is that a criminal case is pending against the first parties in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class. But the result of the case is not known as yet. The other witness was not at tire place of occurrence. He rushed from Karachi on getting a telegram. His evidence is a derived one. Now O. P. W. 1 says that Osman was removed to the hospital as he was critics. But Mr. Osman said that he returned from the hospital in the evening and then issued charge-sheets upon the accused persons. O. P. W. 1 admitted that they did not hold any enquiry before dismissal. From the charge-sheet also it appears that the first parties were not given more than 3 days" time for explanation. No doctor has been examined to prove the injuries sustained by Mr. Osman nor any report has been filed in support of their contention. No other eye-witness or any other witness of the locality present at the time of occurrence was examined. In this case the charge against the first parties was a criminal one that is, riotous behaviour and assault on the Manager of the factory Mr. Osman. 'The second party stands in the position of a prosecutor, But with their testing evidence they have failed to prove the criminal charge, by any amount of reasonable evidence. O. P. W. 2 while saying that the accused workers absconded but other workers were present, could not produce any one of the other workers to prove his case. It further appears that the workers all explain their position denying the charges. But the second party held the explanations unsatisfactory and dismissed them without holding any enquiry. Later when the workers submitted their grievance petitions they were called for another enquiry. But the workers submitted that no enquiry was held as at the appointed time the Management side was found absent. It appears from the copies of the notice for such enquiry that dates were changed in them. Not all workers were called at a time, and Changing of the date arbitrarily must create confusion and it does not prove the bona fides of the enquiring party that is, the second party. From the submission of the first parties it appears further that between the parties there were industrial disputes and that representations were made to the Directorate of Labour several times. It is therefore, clear that between the parties bitter relationship grew up. From the existing evidence it therefore, appears that then Management was not pulling on well with some of the workers. I am, therefore, of the view that these orders of dismissal in respect of the first parties were not legal in so far the second party failed to comply with the procedure of law in taking such action against the workers and that the existing evidence regarding B their criminal activities is inadequate to sustain the charges against them. They are entitled to benefit of doubt. But as the relationship between the parties worsens, it is not possible to give an order of re-instatement in respect of these workers. I, there--fore, think it proper to direct the second party to give them termination benefits.
12. Accordingly, it is ordered that the cases be allowed on contest and the second party be directed to give termination benefits to all the seven first parties according to the provisions of section 19(1) of the Act as they were all permanent workers. The amount in respect of each of the first parties shall be calculated according to section 19(1) of the Act and other legal provisions, by the second party and the amount shall be deposited in Court in favour of the first parties within thirty days of passing this order.
13. I have consulted the opinion of the Members in giving my above decision.