1. MD. ANWAR HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 6 of Labour Disputes Act, 1965 since registered under section 34, I. R. O.
2. East Pakistan Sugar Mills Workers' Union, Gopalpur is the 1st party petitioner. Their case is that their member Majdar Rahman, a cane seasonal weigh-Bridge, clerk worked in the Mill in 1965-66 season. But he was not re-appointed in next seasons. In October 1966 when he approached for appointment he was not taken on the plea that a case -under section 147, P. P. C. was pending against him. The case was dismissed on 4-4-68 and on getting discharge when Majder Rahman approached for service he was not taken.
3. Secondly, it is alleged that another member of the Union Mr. Suresh Chandra Paul, a seasonal Jeep, driver of the Mills was dismissed on 11-5-68 on the charge of negligent work as he left the key in key-hole of the Jeep resulting in sudden start of the Jeep causing an accident and damage of the Jeep.
4. Thirdly, it is alleged that their members. Messrs Narayan Sarker, Abu Baker, Dhiren Sarker, Nurul Islam and Moinuddin Shaik who were workers of Karai section of. Foundry of the Mill were dismissed on 12-2-68 on false allegation that they attacked and assaulted one Fazlur Rahman of cane department.
5. All the above workers of the Mill appealed to the Authority for re-instatement without success.
6. The petitioner-Union then took up their cases for reconsi--deration and re-instatement to the Mill Management. But they did not reply. The Union then referred the matter to Deputy Director of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Rajshahi Division, Bogra. The conciliation having failed, the' workers'
7. Union have come with this case before the Labour Court for the reinstatement of their members on 25-10-69.
8. The 2nd Party O. P. North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Gopalpur, oppose the petitioners. Their defence in substance is that the application in the present form is nor, maintainable as it is barred by misjoinder of causes of action. On merit it is alleged that workers were dismissed after due enquiry for their negligence and unmannerly conduct.
9. Points for decision in the trial, are:
(1) Whether the application ii bad for misjoinder of causes of action? and
(2) Whether the charges against they workers have been sufficiently proved to warrant dismissal?
10. FINDINGS AND DECISION 'Let us take up issue No. 2 first.
11. In this issue 3 sets of workers are involved, Majdar Rahman in one set, Suresh Chandra Paul in 2nd set and Narayan Sarker and 4 others in the 3rd set.
12. Majdar Rahman and Narayan Sarker have been examined. From the evidence of Majdar Rahman it has transpired that he was a cane seasonal worker in 1965-66 season. The cane season starts : from October and lasts up to March. In October 1966 Majdar Rahman was involved in a rioting case under section 147, P. P. C. The rioting took place inside the premises of the Mill. As Majdar Rahman was involved he was not taken in the cane season of 1966-67. The criminal case ended in discharge of the accused on 4-4-68. But Majdar Rahman was not re-appointed in that season or following seasons. The argument of the Mill Authorities that they knew the man as-of dangerous character and so they did not re-appoint him.
13. The workers' Union, however, submitted that there was an agreement and the Mill Authority was bound to re-employ all the seasonal workers who worked in the preceding season. In this case Majdar Rahman did not work in 1966-67 or in 1967-68, so he wag not an eligible candidate for appointment in the season of 1969-70. Again when he was not taken in October 1966 he preferred no appeal to Authority for reinstate--ment. His case in 1969 is time-barred. The case of Majdar Rahman, therefore, fails and he is not entitled to any award for re-appointment.
14. Now coming to case of Suresh Chandra Paul, the Jeep Driver, he was dismissed on charge of negligence resulting an accident and damage of the Jeep. The worker also did not come up before the Court and examine himself to press his grievance if any. His case, therefore, goes by default and he is not entitled to any relief.
15. Now coming to Narayan Sarker and 4 others it appears that only Narayan Sarker has been examined and none others. T8'ey were dismissed for assaulting Fazlar Rahman of cane department. Although Narayan Sarker in his evidence denied the occurrence it appears that he was present at the time of occurrence before the Canteen. It again transpires that Fazlar Rahman was hospitalised and Narayan bad not the courtesy to visit him. This shows that he was in the assault. There was an enquiry and the Enquiry Officer was satisfied about the charges. No defect in the procedure for departmental enquiry has been set up.
16. We do not in the circumstances think it to be a fit case for interference. None of these 5 (five) petitioners Narayan Sarker and 4 others are entitled to an award for re-instatement.
17. On merit, therefore, these cases of all the workmen fail. The point be, therefore, decided against the Union.
18. Point No. 1.-Now coming to the question of defect of the application, it appears that different causes of action have been jumbled up together. Under section 26, I. R. O. there is r reference of negotiation if at any time there is an Industrial Dispute between the Employer and Union of workers.
19. The words "any time" and "an Industrial dispute" are significant.
20. In the instant case, 3 sets of disputes arising on different dates and in different manners have been jumbled up together. In course of taking evidence the difficulty was so keenly felt that no part of evidence was understandable when the and witness came to depose. The facts are so dissimilar from one another that no intelligible grasp of the situation could be made. If different causes of action be allowed to arise in same trial then justice could hardly be done in any of the cases. In such circumstances party may elect to proceed with only one case and not the others.
21. The application is, therefore, found bad for misjoinder of cause of action and be rejected.
22. Members are consulted and their opinions are taken.
23. Hence.
24. ORDERED that the application be dismissed on the contest. None of the Members of the Union are entitled to re-instatement.