1. MD. ANWAR HUSSAIN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(6) of East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 for re-instatement in service with hack wages.
2. The case of complainant 1st party Azizur Rahman is that in 1965 he was appointed temporary Building Supervisor in the North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. In 1966 he was duly confirmed. It is now alleged that on 13-11-1969 he was placed under suspension with charge as to why he should not be dismis--sed for his failure to supervise the repair to the roofs and walls of the Sugar-Godown and Sugar house properly as it rained on 10-11-1969 and rain water poured through leakage in the roofs apprehending damage to stock of Sugar.
3. The complainant showed cause but the explanation was not accepted and the Administration dismissed him from service with effect from 31-12-1969. The appeal to the authority for re- instatement having failed complainant has come with this application. before the Labour Court with prayer for re-instatement with back wages. His ground for re-instatement is that he is not an expert and his knowledge is poor and he made petty repairs and every time the repairs are inspected and supervised by the Engineer and he is not to blame for rain water pouring through the roof-holes.
4. The applications opposed by the 2nd party O. P. Their defence in substance is that the complainant was in sole charge of the maintenance and repair of the Sugar Godown and he did not properly supervise the work as a result when there was rain on 10-11-1969 rain water poured through leakages and threatened damage to Sugar stock.
5. Points for decision in the trial, therefore, is under circum--stances of the case whether dismissal is justified.
6. FINDINGS AND DECISION Two witnesses have been examined-one from each side. Fact proved from the evidence is that the complainant was the Building Supervisor of the Mills and maintenance and repair of the godown was his specific charge.
7. From the documentary evidence it is proved that on 19-8-1968 the complainant reported about leakage in the C. I. Sheets roof and wall of the Sugar godown. It also transpires thatthereafter 28- 12-1,68, 20-3-1969, 28-5-1969, there were reports of rain water passing through leakages in roofs and walls. But still no substantial repairs were taken. The leakages were repaired by patch works by placing pudding on the bolt-joints in the roofs, etc. As a result when there was a heavy down pour of rain the patch works yielded and water poured down in the godown and threatened the stock.
8. The complainant though responsible for the repair is in the circumstances not wholly to blame.
9. There is Engineer over his head inspecting and supervising his works. The leakages were repeatedly brought to the notice of the Administrator still we find no substantial work was done to prevent leakages. We are told that the old roof in old tin-sheet is there as before and only new pudding have been put. This manner of patch work-repair prove contributory negligence on the part of Administration when there were repeated warning for overhaul repairs.
10. We are also told that there was no damage to the Sugar stock as timely precaution saved the stock from rain water.
11. In the circumstances the complainant is partially guilty of negligence. We, therefore, take a lenient view of the matter. In our opinion any punishment short of dismissal or discharge would have been sufficient punishment.
12. Members are consulted and their opinions considered.
13. Hence, ORDERED that the application be allowed. The order of dismissal be set aside. The 2nd party O. P. be directed to re-instate the complainant within 7 days of order without any back wages.
14. The Administration, however, may inflict any other punishment for the negligence of the complainant as they deem fit and proper.