1. These 5 (five) applications under section 34, I. R. O. have arisen out of the following circumstances: Petitioners for all these cases were workers under the 2nd party Bogra Cotton Sipinning Co. Ltd., Bogra. Some of them were members of the Works' Trade Union and Shamsher Ali petitioner of Case No. 8 was the President. For some reason or other they incurred displeasure of the Management and accord--ingly these petitioners and some others were placed under suspension on 29-12-65 and after charge-sheet were dismissed on 13-1-66.
2. Thereupon these 5 petitioners and others approached the Labour Court, Dacca in L. D. Case No. 19 of 1966 for re-instate--ment in service with back wages.
3. The Labour Court, Dacca by its decision and awards dated 3-1-67 allowed the application of the petitioners and some others including one Nasiruddin and the 2nd party Bogra Cotton Spin--ning Co. Ltd. were directed to re-instate them within 33 days of the date of award with half back wages.
4. Being dissatisfied the 2nd party preferred an appeal to the High Court in F. M. A Case No. 11 of 1967: The appeal was, however, dismissed on 10-1069. Thereupon the petitioners along with Nasiruddin approached the 2nd party for re-instatement. But they were not allowed to join on the plea that they had already tendered resignation on 28-3-67.
5. Petitioners' case now is that they did not tender any resigna--tion but their signatures were taken by the Management in some blank papers as bond for good conduct and they apprehend that those blank papers have been converted to alleged resignation.
6. The petitioners were not, however, re-employed so, on 27-3-70 they came with these applications for re-instatement and back wages.
7. Nasiruddin, however, did not sign any paper. So when be was told about his resignation he straightway went to Criminal Court and prosecuted the 2nd party for cheating: The 2nd party then came with Civil Suit No. O. C. 97 of 1970 in the 2nd Court of Munsif, Bogra, on 22- 4-70 for declaration that there were no relationship of employer and employee and got the suit decreed on compromise on 28-4-70 by taking their signatures in some documents without letting the petitioners know about the terms of compromise and by throw--ing the hope of re- instatement in service.
8. According to the petitioners the deeds of resignation and solenama of the Civil Suit are acts of fraud and they are entitled to award for re-instatement in service with half back wages up to 2-2- 67 and full wages from 3-2-67.
9. 2nd party Managing Agents, Bogra Cotton Spinning Co. Ltd. resists the applications. Their defence in substance in all the cases is that there is no relationship of employer and employee between 2nd party and 1st party as it was terminated by resignation of 1st parties as confirmed in solenama of O. C. Suit No. 97 of 1970. So it is contended that the petitioners are opt entitled to any awards.
10. Some legal plea as to maintainability of the application is also taken up.
11. Points for decision in the trial therefore are
(1) Whether the applications are maintainable?
(2) Whether the 1st parties are entitled to any award?
12. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. It is an admitted fact the 1st parties obtained an award for re-instatement in service within 30 days from the date of award dated 3-1-67, with half back wages from the date of suspension on 29-12-66. Admittedly there was an appeal before the High Court by 2nd party and the appeal was dismissed on 10-10-
70. There is also, no disputed that the 1st parties have not been re-instated.
13. Petitioners have now come in these applications with prayers for re-instatement in service, back half wages up to 2-2-67 and full wages from 3-2-67.
14. During argument, however, the learned Advocate for the petitioners did not press for reliefs of re- instatement and half back wages but pressed for full wages for the period from 3-2-67 up to the date of re-instatement.
15. Evidence was led and all 5 petitioners were examined. The substance of their evidence is that after the award of the Labour Court dated 3-1-67 the petitioners approached for re-instatement and Management asked them to execute bonds for good behaviour and in good faith and in the hope of getting service they signed some blank sheet of papers and when afterward they went to join they were not allowed to join on the plea that Management have preferred an appeal before the High Court and they cannot be allowed to join till the appeal be disposed of.
16. Evidence of the witnesses further is that after disposal of appeal when they and others approached for re-instatement they., were told that they had already resigned. According to petitioners they did not resign but they signed some blank papers towards bond for good behaviour and their apprehension is that the blank sheet of papers signed by them might have been converted into the resignation deeds.
17. The petitioners are all excepting Shamsher Ali illiterate persons capable of just writing their names.
18. There is no name of scribe in any of the resignations and the 2nd party also did not examine any witness to prove the resignations and to rebut the evidence of fraud and forgery proved by the 1st part witnesses although they produced the resignation deeds.
19. There again appears practically no consideration for the alleged resignations and no case of consideration is there in any written objection: The 1st party won the case in the Labour Court, Dacca. They filed the case through their Trade Union. the Union was the respondent in appal. The individual petitioner had no hand in the appeal.
20. The consideration set forth in the resignations about financial difficulties in proceeding with the appeal is in the circumstances no consideration at all. The alleged resignations are not proved and must, therefore, fail for want of consideration also.
21. The solenama of the civil Court was obtained within 6 days of institution of the suit. It is again nothing but a confirmation of the resignation. There being no consideration for the said solenama it is bound to fail. It is to be noted that the Civil Suit was instituted on 22-4-70 long after filing of the applications before the Labour Court.
22. P. Ws. proved the circumstances under which the solenama was obtained. According to them Nasiruddin criminally prosecuted the Managing Agents for cheating and finding no other alternative the Management came with a sham Civil Suit and to save their prestige, prevailed upon the petitioners to get signatures of the P. Ws. mostly illiterate as they are on the assurance that they would be provided with job.
23. According to the witnesses the solenama was not read over to them and it was not allowed to be read by them and they did not engage any Lawyer and their signatures were taken in the house of the Managing Agents where they were called. As already observed there is no denial of those allegation by any counter evidence from the 2nd party.
24. The solenama is again not signed by the 2nd party or their Lawyer. It is, therefore, a nullity and it cannot dissolve the relationship of employer and employee. It is also curious to note that Nasiruddin was 're-instated and the Civil Suit was compromised with him and others in another fashion that their resignation were invalid.
25. In the circumstances we cannot but hold that the solenama is another piece of fraud and forgery.
26. Again when an award was passed by a Labour Court followed by an abortive appeal before the High Court any adjustment of that award, either by resignation or by compromise roust be made through a Labour Court. The adjustment having not been recorded, it is not worth any consideration and the civil Court decree in the circumstances cannot help the matter. The question of adjustment of the award is a question of satisfaction. Any question relating to implementa--tion, discharge or satisfaction of an award is to be made through Executing Court and a separate Suit is barred. In that sense also, the Civil Suit is a bar and the decree has got no relevancy in the alleged adjustment.
27. There is in the applications no statement about the payment or non-payment of the back wages.
28. Only reference of back wages are in the reliefs prayed for. In the written objection there is also no defence of payment of back wages. P. Ws. however, proved by evidence that they got no money towards their back wages. The 2nd party, however, produced a Muster Roll dated 28-4-70 to show payment of Rs. 4,000.00 to Insar Ali of Case No. 2 of 1970, Rs. 2,500.00 to Fazlur Rahman of Case No. 4 of 1970, Rs. 2,500'00 to Habibur Rahman of Case No. 6 of 1970, Rs. 2,500'00 to Shamsher Ali of Case No. 8 of 1970 and Rs. 4,000---00 to Mosharaf Hussain of Case No. 9 of 1970 and in support of the payment produced the debit memo. of 25-4-70 together with the Cash Book. The P.Ws. did not deny the signatures in the Muster Roll over Revenue Stamp, but their evidence is that they got no payment. In the Muster Roll payment has been shown for consideration of the solenamas of O.P.
29. Suit No. 97 of 1970 dated 28-4-70. But as observed before these payments do not find any mention in the solenama. The Cash Book is again far from satisfactory. Although the payments are noted in- the Cash Book dated 29th April 1970 against Voucher No. 672 it appears that Vouchers are not serially noted. Voucher No. 644 hay been written against 2 items of debit Some Vouchers have been written with same numbers with addition of A, B as for example 676, ' 676-A, 676-B. Again no Voucher numbers are at all written against debits on and from 1st August 1970. Day's totals either on credit or debit are not there at all from 14th July 1970. And whatever day's totals are there, it is in pencil and in most case over-written and there no signature of either the Cashier or Accountant in any part of the whole book and no witness proves those documents.
30. No. O. P. W. is there to prove payment of the money also. The Cash Book not being maintained in ordinary course of business, it is unliable in evidence.
31. Petitioner Shamsher Ali, however, admitted in cross---examination that he received Rs. 2,300---00 in 2 instalments and that also after the compromise of the Civil Suit. He was as already observed the President of the workers' Trade Union, so he was given soma amount of money. But no other petitioners in our opinions received any money.
32. The 1st parties were suspended and dismissed. They were never re-instated after the award. So no question of their tendering resignation arises and there is no earthly reason for their resigning.
33. Excepting Shamsher Ali no other petitioners got any money towards their back wages.
34. In that circumstance the petitioners excepting Shamsher Ali should get the relief sought for: But it is argued on behalf of the 2nd panty O. P. that the application under section 34, I. R. O. having been filed by individual workers is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the O. P. it is the Collective Bargaining Agent or the Trade Union which can file an application under section 34, I. R. O. for adjudication of an industrial dispute and an individual has no authority. Reliance is placed on section 43., I. R. O. and under this section there is no industrial dispute unless it is raised by a Collective Bargaining Agent or in its absence by a Trade Union.
35. The argument had force and substance till 14th October when section 34, I. R. O. embodying those provisions was amended and substituted by new provisions. Under the new amendment any Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer or worker may apply to the Labour Court for enforcement of any right.
36. So the applications are maintainable as filed by workers.
37. But with all the above findings there is still one hurdle in the success of the petitioners. And that is the principle of res judicata. The relief prayed for and pressed for is the relief for full wages from 3- 2-67 to the date of re-instatement. But we must observe that this relief is covered in the award of the Labour Court, Dacca, dated 3-1-67 in its decision and direction of re-instatement within 30 days of award. The award is there and when it has not been implemented a observed above another award is uncalled for. The Court cannot adjudicate the same thing twice again. The petitioners need not seek for another award for the same relief which is barred res judicata.
38. It is now a question of implementation of the award under section 51, I. R. O. for recovery of money and under section 55, I. R. O. for penalty for failure in implementation. And evidence in record is that some petitions have been filed under section 55, I. R. O.
39. With these observations, all the applications be dismissed.
40. Members were consulted and their opinions considered.
41. Hence, ORDERED that all the 5 applications be dismissed as barred by res judicata.