1. MD. NURUL, ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN). These two applications are under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first parties is that they were suspended from service on charges of misconduct such as gherao, attempt to assault, misbehaving and abusing the officers of the Management including Mr. Md. Arif Ismail, the Managing partner, abetment of such assault, intimidation and misconduct by other workers inside the factory premises on 10-12-69. They were not given proper suspension allowance as per law. There was no proper enquiry and finally they were dismissed on 13-1-70 and 18-3-70 respectively. They sent grievance petitions but they received no reply. Hence these applications for re-instatement with back wages and other legal dues.
3. The second party entered into appearance and submitted that the charges were correct and that explanations were submitted by the workers, which were not found satisfactory: There was an enquiry in which they were found guilty of misconduct and accordingly dismissed. There is no cause of grievance and hence the applications should be dismissed.
4. Point for determination in the present cases is whether the order of dismissal passed by the second party against the first parties is valid and legal?I FINDINGS AND DECISION The parties were heard at length and papers were scrutinised. . It was found on examination of the papers that charge sheets were drawn up against the first parties for misconduct for surrounding the officers for forcing a decision on annual leave, abusing the officers by name and attempting to make forceful entry into the office possibly to assault and also for abetment of the same misconduct by other workers. The first parties denied the charges. It appears that the accused workers were examined ' and they admitted that Police came on that day. In the enquiry no prosecution witness except the Managing Partner Mr. Arif Ismail gave statement as a prosecution witness. He was not cross-examined. He only gave written statement. Mr. Arif levelled all the charges against tile first parties as stated above.
5. From the circumstantial evidence as found from the evidence of the accused workers -and their witness Ali Akbar, it appears that there was some sort of disturbance on that particular day and Police had to come for the rescue of officers. The first parties denied any knowledge of any untoward incident. But even then they had to admit the presence of the Police. However, the fact remains that the only prosecution witness was not cross-examined and therefore his evidence was not tested. In spite of feeling that there was an occurrence as stated by the second party, we feel that there should be a proper enquiry in the matte by adducing witnesses who should be cross- examined by the defence.
6. Holding the above view we allow these two applications on he following terms and conditions: The second party be directed to hold a fresh enquiry regarding :he charges of misconduct against the first parties within 30 days from to-day and take a proper decision as they may find do the basis of the enquiry. They may report regarding the result of the enquiry within the 'said 30 days, to this Court after which the matter will be scrutinised.
7. Members on consultation, agreed with my above decision.