1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). This is an applica--tion under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter called as the Act.
2. The case of the first party was that he was a bundleman working on piece-rate on a daily wage of Rs. 7.01 On 12-5-69 he was charge-sheeted for inciting the workers to resort to a strike on 12-5-69 from 12 a.m. to 3 p.m. without complying with the legal procedure. He gave his explanation. There was an enquiry, but he was not given any chance to .produce his defence witnesses. The enquiry was illegal and thereafter the second party dismissed him. He sent a grievance petition but he received no reply. Hence, this application for putting him back to his former post with all back wages.
3. The second party entered into appearance by filing a written statement wherein it was stated, inter alia, that the application was not maintainable and that the first party was given a proper opportunity in an enquiry after framing charge-sheet was laid down in law. The enquiry officer found him guilty and there--after he was dismissed.
4. Points for determination in the present case are:
(1) Whether the order of dismissal passed by the second party against the first party is legal? ,
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience.
6. It appears from the papers produced by the second party that the first party was charge-sheeted for having abetted a wild-cat 'strike by the doffers of the Ring Section of Tangail Cotton Mills from 12 a.m. to-3 p.m. on 12-5-69. The point was to find out as to whether there was any strike as alleged by the second party. It appears that the first party was charge---sheeted for this so-called strike and thereafter, he offered an explanation which was found unsatisfactory by the second party. The second party conducted an enquiry against the first party in which 3 witnesses were examined.
7. These witnesses were admittedly cross examined by the first party. But nothing contradictory has been elicited out of the cross-examination by the first party. It has then been submitted that no defence winess was, adduced. The first party has alleged in his grievance petition as well as in Court that he was not given any opportunity to produce his defence witnesses. It appears in the facts and circumstances of the case that he had no defence witnesses and no defence witness was produced as such. If he had any witness, he would have taken the witness at the time of the enquiry and produced them there. He also did not immediately send any application to the enquiry officer or to the Mill Authority alleging that he took his witnesses who were not given opportu--nity of being examined by the enquiry officer. As such, his contention falls fiat. So it appears that there is no defect in the proceeding. A full enquiry was held and he was found guilty of misconduct such as staging an illegal strike on 12-5-69 A from 12 a.m. to 3 p.m. by the doffers of the. Ring Section. This is definitely illegal and it constitutes misconduct. So in view of this finding we find no defect in the impugned order of dismissal and therefore, this application has to be rejected.
8. In view of the above findings the first party is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
9. Members on consultation agree with my above decision and submitted their written opinion accordingly.