1971 PLP 484 (PLC(CS))

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑All these 4 applications under section 25(1)(6) of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been filed by 4 individual workers against the same second party employer. The cases of the 4 first parties are same and similar as they have been dism189ed by the second party in the so‑called departmental proceedings after an alleged enquiry. The allegations are also similar. Hence these 4 cases would be disposed of together by the same judgment. The case of the first parties in brief, is that they were employed on different dates as workers and they became permanent in due course. It was alleged by the second party that some incidents of riotous behaviour and maltreatment to the authorities took place inside the factory premises on 10‑12‑69 after 3‑30 p.m. and that on their different demands the individual workers as headed by these 4 first parties surrounded the Mill authorities, threatened, abused and even tried to assault them by instigating the workers. Later the Police came and rescued the owners. It was held by these 4 first parties that there was no departmental enquiry according to law and they were not given the chance to cross‑examine the prosecution witness and after a sham enquiry they were dismissed from service. This being the position they sent grievance notices. But the reply they received was not satisfactory. Hence these cases with prayer for re‑instatement to their former posts with all back wages. The case of the second party is quite common. This is that the first party workers were turbulent and they gheraoed the Mill administration with frivolous and vexatious demands, created a riotous situation for which the Police had to be called finally. They instigated the workers, abused the Manager and other officers in filthy language and tried to assault them. Police had to rescue the officers including the manager from the clutches of the 4 first parties: They, therefore, committed misconduct in the eye of law. Accordingly they were asked to show cause. Later a departmental enquiry was held in which the workers were given full chance to defend their case. They were found guilty and accordingly they were dismissed. Their cases are false and frivolous and are liable to be dismissed with cost. Points for determination : . (1) Whether the order of dismissal in respect of the 4 first parties is illegal and improper. (2) What relief, if any, are the first parties entitled to? Both the points would be taken up together for the sake of convenient discussion. The parties have been heard in full length. It transpired that these 4 workers were permanent workers under the second party. It is admitted that the show‑cause notice was issued by the same person and that very person held the enquiry and dismissed them. So it is submitted that there was no independent enquiry. The enquiry itself was bias as the same man holding the grudge such as the plaint conducted the enquiry according to his own wishes. It appears on a scrutiny of the papers furnished by the second party that the charges brought against the first parties could not be sustained. It appears further from the record that one Mr. Arif gave a statement in all these cases. He being the only witness for the prosecution was not allowed to be cross‑examined or put before the accused for undertaking the test of cross‑examination. Thus the evidence of the prosecution witness remained untested and therefore, it has no significance and value in the eye of law. The complainant failed to prove, the charge against the 4 first parties. It appears that the‑ manner of enquiry, the materials brought therein hardly can stand the test of good law and therefore, the order of dismissal passed against the first parties has been vitiated from the very beginning. It must be held to be illegal and improper and therefore, it is null and void. However, it appears that there is a bad blood between the parties and the employer has refused to accept them since there was a gherao movement allegedly within the factory premises at that particular tune. In view of this we feel that in case they are re‑instated, further complication would be created. Hence I deem it fit to give them termination benefits as they have been able to prove their case beyond doubt. Hence it is ordered that the cases be allowed on contest and the second party be directed to give full termination benefits to these 4 first parties such as notice pay, all arrear pay if any, leave salary if due, compensation at the rate 14 days, wages for every completed year of service or for any part thereof in excess of six months. The amount shall be calculated and deposited by the second party to the credit of the first parties within thirty days from the date of passing this order. I have consulted the written opinion of the Members who have agreed with my findings above. This order will govern all the 4 Complaint Cases Nos. 161, 163, 193 and 194 of 1970.