Decided on June 18,1995

Managing Director, Rupali Bank Ltd. Appellant
Md. Nazrul Islam Patwary Respondents


MD.ABDUR ROUF,J. - (1.) This appeal by the Managing Director of Rupali Bank defendant No. 1 by leave, is against the decision of the High Court Division, in Civil Revision No. 3663 of 1991, discharging the Rule on 27 January 1992, and upholding the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Noakhali on 28 April 1998 in Title Appeal No. 276 of 1987 affirming those dated 26 September 1987 passed by the Assistant Judge, Ramganj decreeing Title Suit No. 41 of 1986 and declaring thereby that the termination of employment of the plaintiff has been done illegally and without any lawful authority and that the plaintiff is still in the employment of the Rupali Bank.
(2.) Plaintiff-respondent No.1 while in service as a security guard of Rupali Bank was terminal from service by an order dated 15 September, 1981 by the Bank Management with termination benefits. He challenged the termination order in the aforesaid suit and got a decree which was challenged unsuccessfully in appeal before the District Judge and then in the High Court Division in revision. On behalf of the defendant, objection was raised as to the maintainability of the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that a security guard of the Bank clearly falls within the definition of worker under section 2(v) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, and that he cannot maintain any civil suit. learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment has maintained the trial Courts decree, but has held that the plaintiff was not a worker at all within the meaning of section 2(v) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, shortly the Act, on the reasoning that these classes of employee of the bank are not meant for productive purposes and, as such, the suit was maintainable.
(3.) Leave was granted to consider as to whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court Division upon proper interpretation of the definition of the word worker as defined in section 2(v) of the Act has correctly held that the suit was maintainable.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.