CHITTAGONG JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is against the judgment and order dated 12-11-1997 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.1543 of 1990 filed against the judgment and order dated 30th May, 1990 passed by the respondent No.1 in Complaint Case No.124 of 1987 directing the appellant company to re-instate the respondent No. 2 in his service with 10% back wages and attending benefits.

(2.) The respondent No.2 as complainant filed complaint Case No. 124 of 1987 before the 1st Labour Court Chittagong, stating, inter alia, that he was a permanent worker of the appellant company for the last 15 years. He was discharging his duties honestly, efficiently, regularly and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, having a clear record of service. Suddenly, the appellant by letter dated 15-12-86 brought the false and fabricated charges against him and thereby directed him to submit his explanation thereto within 7 days as to why he shall not be dismissed from service or otherwise why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The allegation made in the charge-sheet was of misconduct for making excess payment of Tk. 57,630 to casual assorters causing serious loss to the appellant company. The respondent No.2 submitted explanation denying all the allegations made against him. It was stated that the clerks, supervisor and in charge of the Jute Department were responsible for payments and he being merely a Head Sardar worked according to the instructions of his supervisor officers and he had no clerical work at that time. He was then transferred from Ghat purchase to Katcha assorting shed.

(3.) The authority concerned again served another letter dated 21-1-87 to the respondent No.2 along with 6 other employees of the company for misappropriation of Taka 1, 31,804.65 causing loss to the appellant company constituting the offence under section 17(3) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 and asked for explanation. The respondent No.2 explained the same, which was treated as not satisfactory. Thereafter, an inquiry committee was formed. The respondent No. 2 appeared before the inquiry committee. His case is that his statement was not properly and correctly recorded and his signature was obtained by force. The inquiry committee was closed without cross-examining the employees of the appellant company and the inquiry was conducted in an unfair manner, yet the respondent No. 2 received the order of dismissal on 9-3-87 dismissing him from his service. The respondent No.2 being aggrieved filed a grievance petition in due time and thereafter, he filed an application before the 1st Labour Court, Chittagong for appropriate remedy.