1970 PLP 847 (PLC)

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. The case of the first party is that he was a security guard since 24‑9‑68 under the second party. The petitioner was dismissed from service on 20‑11‑69 for alleged misconduct of theft and bribery. F. I. R. was lodged with the Police, but the Police did not submit charge‑sheet against the first party. But to the departmental enquiry he was held guilty in an unfair him where he was not given proper opportunities to defend Hence he was highly aggrieved by the order of dismissal and he preferred a grievance petition which was not replied to by the second party. Hence this application with a prayer for re‑instatement to his former post with arrear back‑wages. The second party entered into appearance by filing written objection. It was stated by the second party that the first party was not a worker and that there was a full‑fledged enquiry against the first party on charges of misconduct such as; abetment of theft and bribery, that he was given proper opportunities to defend himself during the enquiry and that lie was duly found guilty and dismissed thereafter after observing all formalities. Hence the petition is liable to be rejected. Points for determination in the present case are: ‑ (1) Whether the order of dismissal passed by the second party against the first party is legal? (2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to? Both the points are dealt with together for the sake of convenience. It appears that the first party is a worker according to the definition of the Act. He was a permanent worker. The second party has failed to prove that his services were declared essential by the Government by any notification, and as such, the argument of the second party is untenable. It appears that the first party was suspended on specific charges of bribery and abetment of theft. He was given proper opportunity to explain his conduct and an enquiry was held where he was given chance to defend himself. In the present case, on perusal of the papers it appeals that there are no defects in procedure. Charges were framed and a proper enquiry was held and the worker was given opportunities to defend himself. It has been alleged by the second party that no grievance petition was received by them. But the first party has produced a copy of the grievance petition along with a receipt of the post office in support of the claim that it was despatched to the District Manager, Motijheel Depot, by registered post with A/D. The acknowledgement receipt, however, has not been produced and we cannot be sure that this was received by the second party. In any case on entering into the merit of the case we find that this case has no merit. In the result, the application of the first party is dismissed on contest, but without costs. Members on consultation agree with my above decision,