1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25 (1)(b) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, , which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first party` is that he was working as a Pressman in the shop of the second party since September 1965 on a monthly salary of Rs. 190.00. On 20-2-70 when he went to joint to his duties after Eid festival, he was not allowed to join to his duty by the Management who told the first party, that his services would no longer be required. The first party went on attending the shop till 28-2-70 and requested the second party to allow him to his duty which was refused. He was the Assistant Secretary of Workers' Union. He then served grievance notice upon the second party on 26-2-70. He received a reply, dated 9-3-70. He came to learn that he was charge-sheeted on 16-2- 70 on an allegation of misconduct committed by him on 14-2-70. He denied misconduct and receipt of any charge-sheet earlier. The first party was told to submit his explan4tion. He was also told to attend an enquiry. The first party did not consider i1 necessary to attend the enquiry, and accordingly informed the second party by his letter, dated 6-4-70. He was then compelled to file this application with prayer for directing the second party to re-instate him to his former post.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement in which it was stated, inter alia, that the case was not maintainable as the first party was dismissed by the second party after holding a due enquiry by a letter dated 14-4-70. The first did not neither submit any grievance petition to the second party within 15 days from the date of dismissal nor complied with the mandatory provision of section 25 of the Act for filing this application. He has no cause of grievance. There was a proper charge-sheet and enquiry against him which he did not-attend. The enquiry was concluded ex parte and he was found guilty of misconduct. Hence dismissed. He was found habitually negligent of his duty and thus caused heavy financial loss to the second party.
4. The second party had to pay compensation to the customers to the extent of Rs. 200.00 due to his such negligent action and damage caused by him on 8-1-70. He was then dismissed by a letter, date 28-1-70. But at the request of the Union assuring about his good conduct be was then re- instated to his post. But unfortunately he did not improve upon his previous performance and continued the said negligent sort of duty. On 14-2-70 due to his negligent performance of duty a costly coat of a customer was damaged. He left the workshop and did not turn up. The order of dismissal passed by the second party is quite in order and perfectly legal, and hence this application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Points for determination :
(1) Whether the first party was illegally dismissed;
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION Point No. 1.-On examination of the papers submitted the parties and on a hearing of both the parties it appears that the first party was dismissed at first for his negligent conduct and then he was re-instated due to the intervention of the Union. The first party admitted that he refused to attend to the enquiry and thus by his own choice he shirked himself from the due process of law and in fact, committed another misconduct. In such circumstances there was no way out for the second party but to hold the enquiry ex parte against him. The first party cannot give any good reason either legal or informal in support of his not attending the enquiry as all employees, '`private or Government, must submit to the discipline of the establishment under which they work.
7. Admittedly, therefore, the first party committed gross misconduct and while he was charge- sheeted, an enquiry was bound to be held in the face of his refusal in an ex parte fashion. As he was still a worker under the second party, he had to submit to the rules of discipline, and in case of his refusal to do so, he becomes automatically liable for gross indiscipline and misconduct.
8. Next it appears that the first party tried to deny that he was not handed over a copy of the charge- sheet at the first instance. The second party stated that the first party refused to take the charge sheet and then it was hung up in the Notice Board. It appears from the subsequent papers that this worker went on shifting his address. He gave at least 4 addresses such as, 9/2, Hosaini Dalan Road, Dacca, Pressm an, Li Hua Dry Cleaners, C/o. Mr. Dinen Sen, 3/10, Liaquat Avenue, Dacca-1, C/o, Abul Kalam Chowdhury, 108, B.C.C. Road, Thataribazar, Room No. 17, Dacca, 13, Bakshi Bazar Government Market, Dacca-I. In such circumstances it was difficult to locate him at any particu--lar address: So it appears that this volatile and vlambuoyant element of a pressman was floating like a water- hyacinth and in spite of the best attempt of the second party employer he could not be fixed or he could not be located with great difficulty. The second party has produced the vouchers showing that they suffered loss to the extent of Rs. 200'00 in one instance and for Rs. 65'00 in another instance due to his negligent conduct. The proceed--ings papers have been submitted. It appears that the proceedings have been duly conducted and that this worker has no case at all. The domestic enquiry has been lawfully conducted giving the first party proper opportunities which he did not avail of hi own volition. His actual grievance accrued after the date o dismissal. But he did not prefer any grievance petition after that dismissal. So otherwise also this application is not maintainable.
9. For all these reasons I find that this application a bound to fail.
10. Point No. 2. In view of my findings above is point No. 1, the first party is not entitled to any relief.
11. I have consulted the opinion of the Members in arriving at this decision.