[VIII of 1965]
The Corporation has a right to frame its own rules concerning the condition of employment of workers as provided under the Proviso to section 3 of the Act—Rules not found invalid—Labour Court travelled beyond the pleading of the party.
Brigadier Choudhury Khalequzzaman Vs. Sk. Shahabuddin 42 DLR 293.Section 26—
Labour Court has no jurisdiction to determine the quantum of termination benefit under section 26—Labour Court cannot punish an alleged offender for failure to comply with an indefinite order.
Brigadier Choudhury Khalequzzaman Vs. Sk. Shahaluddin 42 DLR 293.
After a general order conferring termination benefits upon a workman is passed by a Labour Court the court has no jurisdiction to determine the quantum of the benefits under section 26.
We do not express any opinion as to the remedy of respondent No.2 with regard to his entitlement to the allegedly balanced sum of Tk. 54,657. He may take recourse to such remedies as he may be advised, but we are definitely of the opinion that after the Labour Court passes a general order conferring termination benefits upon a workman, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to determine the quantum under section 26 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965.
The Labour Court can punish an offender only for refusal or failure to comply with a definite order and not for refusal or failure to comply with an indefinite order. If the earlier judgment was for an ascertained sum, then the respondent No. 2 could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 26, but for an unascertained sum the Labour Court simply has no jurisdiction to proceed against the accused—petitioner, particularly, when there is neither any refusal nor any failure to comply with the order of the Labour Court.
Sekander Miah Vs. Chairman, 1st Labour Court, 41 DLR 203.