1. MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-This is an application under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act.
2. The case of the first, party is that he was a permanent worker under the second party fr about 13 years and that he was the President of the only Union of the workers of the second party. Due to his lawful Trade Union activities he became the eye sore co f the second party who tried to victimise him in various ways "the -second party started preventing him from joining his normal duties, since 17-6-67. They further brought false charge of unauthorised absence against him. Ire then complained to the Deputy Director of Labour on 19th June 1967. A copy of the said complaint was also sent to the second party. The second party then charge-sheeted him for unauthorised absence on 23-6-67. The first party replied to the charge-sheet on 26-6-67. The Deputy Director of Labour in the meantime made .a query. The second party then sent a letter, dated 6-7-67 to the first party refusing to hold an enquiry as demanded by the fist party, but only wanted to give him a personal hearing to be held on 13-7-67 and gave a false assurance that he would not be prevented from joining his duties. On receipt of this letter the first party went tai the Mills on 8-7-67 and also on 10-7-67, but he was not allowed to join. So he protested by a letter, dated -10th July 1967. The second party then resorted to delaying tactics and so the first party by a letter, dated 17- 7-67 to the Deputy Director of Labour, demanded justice. On 5-8-67 a personal hearing took place.
3. But the first party was not allowed to produce his evidence. So the first party on 8-8-67 filed a written com--plaint to the' Deputy Director of Labour regarding the personal hearing. Thereafter the Union took up the matter and filed case in the First Labour Court being Labour Dispute Case No. 68/68. The Management at last allowed the first party to join Rib duties before the final hearing of the case. The second party issued a letter of dismissal to the first party -on 11-7-69 on the basic of the false charge-sheet framed 2 years back. The first party submitted a grievance petition .to the second party on 22-7-69. The second party rejected the prayer by a letter dated 30-7-69. Hence this petition with a prayer to direct the second party to re-instate the first party to his former post with all back wages, etc. The second party entered into appearance and filed a written statement in which they termed the application to be false and frivolous. It was stated that the first party was a habitual defaulter in attending his duties. He was issued several warnings and thereafter the impugned case was started on 20-6-67. During these 3 years he adopted various tactics to delay the finalisation of the case and the Court proceedings and he adopted one pretext to the other for re-opening a case and thus harassed the second party. He is a trouble-shooter and that he was creating labour trouble in the Tongi Industrial Area. He has given false story about accidents and injuries. On the final date of hearing of the case he gave a false story that he sent one Shafiullah but that Shafiullah could not reach the Court in time, and the case was dismissed. It was a long pending case and the Court took it up in the absence of the first party and dismissed the case. The application should be dismissed with costs.
4. Points for determination in the present case:
(1) Whether the order passed by the second party in respect of the first party is legal, end valid?
(2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to?
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION Both the points would be dealt with together for the sake of convenience.
6. It appears from the papers produced in Court that this is very protracted case. Charge-sheet was drawn up against the first party as early as 23-6-67. Thereafter many things happened in between, as a result of which the proceedings could not be concluded, earlier. Then on 11-7-69 the first party was dismissed'. The charges against the first party were mainly on the ground of unauthorised absence. It was shown in the charge-sheet of the second party that out of 173 working days from 1st January 1967 to 22nd of June 1967 the first party remained on unathorised absence for a total period of 1181 days. In answer to the charges the worker fought hard and it may be found in his own case that he" approached the Deputy Director of Labour several times, approached the Labour Court, answered the charges and faced the enquiry. Though his ostensible reason given in his case is that he was not giving a fair opportunity during the enquiry, it appears that during the enquiry proceedings by the enquiring officer he was elaborately examined, so was examined the other officers from the side of the prosecution. The worker himself admitted that he remained on unauthorised absence on several days and he could not give a proper account of this unauthorised absence. He tried to explain away by himself. But these explanations appear to be sham and concocted. There was no question of examining defence witnesses when the accused worker, himself admitted that he remained on unauthorised absence without any previous permission or leave for more than 10 days even at a stretch and on such unauthorised absence on many occasions so that the total unauthorised absence during the period of 6 months came to 1181 days out of 173 days. No explanation is sufficient for this for his high-handedness. The mere ground that he was the President of the Union does not qualify him to remain on unauthorised absence, while he was working under the employer concerned. It appears that there was a fair enquiry in the matter and the worker himself was present at the time of the enquiry althrough. He signed the pages where his deposition was recorded. As such we find no fault in his case-that there was no fair enquiry.
7. Hence this petition of the first party is rejected on contest but without costs: Members on consultation have agreed with my opinion given above.