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 back wages.
2. The case of the complainant 1st party petitioner Md. Omar Faruque is that he was a worker under the 2nd party O. P. North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., as a fieldman ever since 1966. He was duly confirmed. At the period of dispute in February 1970 he was at Bagha cane purchasing centre for purchasing cane. From 29th February supply was meagre in one or two cart loads a day. Agents and big growers informed him that there was no cane for sale. The complainant then gave publicity in local Hats and Bazars by beat of drum that the centre would be closed from 23rd February. Still the com--plainant kept the centre open for about a week. On 3-3-70 the Administrator visited the locality, transferred the complainant and posted there another hand.
3. Soon after, on 8-3-70 the complainant was charged for negligence and was asked to explain why be would not be dismissed from service.
4. The petitioner showed cause. But his explanation was not accepted and after enquiry the complainant was dismissed by order dated 27-4-70.
5. The complainant preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal. But to no effect.
6. HENCE THIS APPLICATION The application is registered by O. P. on grounds inter alia that the complainant was a shirker and while there was enough cane in the field the complainant arbitrarily closed the purchasing centre, at Bagha and he was charge-sheeted and after enquiry dismissed.
7. Point for decision in the trial, therefore, is:
(1) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the order of dismissal is justified?
8. FINDINGS AND DECISION Two witnesses have been examined one from each side. It transpires that the petitioner while posted, at Bagha cane pur--chasing centre tried to close the centre with effect from 23-2-70 by giving publicity in local Hats and Bazars by beat of drum. According to the complainant he did so as there was no cane available. His evidence is that canes were coming in one or two cart loads a day and he got reports in writing from big growers and the supply agents that cane would not be any more available. In support of the contention, he produced some documents from those people. Some cards were produced to show that agents could not give supply can the dates mentioned. But it also appears from the evidence as admitted, by dim that the Adminis--trator visited the locality with him and found cane in areas of Dakra, Bakra and sLaxmipur and other locality.
9. So it is proved that there was cane in the locality. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was no cane is not true. The petitioner wanted to say that the cane as found was in the jurisdiction of other Mill at Harian and he had no authority to purchase the same. But that contention is not tenable as Harian Mill already closed their centre and there was no difficulty in purchasing that cane. It was again argued on behalf of the petitioner that the producers did not like to Sell cane to the Mill as they were preparing Gur which was more profitable. Difficulty of transport was also pleaded.
10. But this contention is also not tenable as the successor successfully managed to purchase about 2 thousand maunds of cane. So it is proved that there, was cane and it was ready for sale to centre.
11. So in fact the complainant has got no case. Again according to direction of the Administration, it appears that the centre is to be closed with permission of the Administration. In this cafe when the complainant gave publicity of closure of the centre, there was complaint to the Administrator and he rushed to the centre and himself visited the locality and found cane in the field. He took necessary steps by transferring the complainant and posting another man before actually the centre was closed. As a result the Mill could purchase 2,000 maunds of cane more.
12. In the circumstances we cannot but find the complainant Md. Oman Faruque guilty of laches. But there is one aspect o the case in favour of the complainant. The closure of the centre of the Harian Mill sufficiently indicates that there was paucity of cane.
13. In the circumstances of the case when the Mill did not actually suffer any pecuniary damage a lenient view could be taken.
14. Instead of outright dismissing the complainant any punish--ment short of dismissal or discharge as the Administration deem fit and proper would suffice the purpose.
15. Members were consulted and their opinions considered.
16. Hence ORDERED that the application be allowed. The order of dismissal he sat aside.
17. The 2nd party be directed to re-instate the complainant within 7 days of order without back wages with option to inflict any other punishment as indicated in the judgment.