The respondent no 2 has given annual increments and other service benefits to the petitioner as per law like permanent worker and his salary was fixed like a permanent Worker. Therefore, in our view the case reported in 46 DLR 143 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the mere fact that the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis will not disentitle him from getting the benefit under section 4 of the Employment of Labour (standing orders) Act, 1965.
Samir Malaker Vs. Labour Court & Ors 11 BLT (HCD)-380
Discharged from service on the ground “continued il1-health”—Respondent No. 2 was performing the functions of Head Sarder in the winding department of the appellant. He was continually absent from 19-9-80 due to his illness. His last application for
leave is dated 25-2-81. In the said application he stated that he was improving, but the medical certificates appended thereto is silent about his recovery and failed to recover from the said illness during the course of 5 months. The appellant employer has rightly takes the view that respondent No.2 was suffering from “continued ill-health” and would not be in a fit and sound condition of health to perform his assigned duties.
M/S. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Second Labour Court. 513LT (AD)-289
An order of termination—Appellant is the employer and respondent No. 2, a driver of the appellant’s establishment—on the allegations of unauthorised absence for 155 days the employer drew a regular proceeding against the driver charging him with Misconduct—an enquiry was held by the employer during which the driver was heard in person and on conclusion of the enquiry a report was submitted finding him guilty of Misconduct by unauthorised and wilful absence. On the basis of this report he was dismissed from service. He filed a grievance petition before the employer which was rejected. Thereupon he filed a complaint before the Labour Court, under section 25 of the Act. The Labour Court did not find any error in the procedure adopted for the domestic enquiry or in the order of dismissal. Nevertheless, the Labour Court ordered for the driver’s re-instatement. The Labour Court’s order was unsuccessfully challenged, before the High Court Division—finds it difficult to defend the Labour Courts order for reinstatement as contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 — Held: In view of this position, we need not restore the order of dismissal and we think it a fit case for termination instead under section 19 of the Act with all termination benefits.
Chittagong Urea Fertilizer Ltd. Vs. Labour Court Ctg & Ors. 3BLT (AD) -201
It is incumbent under Section 25(1)(a) of the Act to submit a grievance petition in writing by registered post before approaching the Labour Court for redress. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any grievance petition in writing to his employer by registered post.
Md. Joynal Abedin Vs. First Labour Court & Ors. 9BLT (AD)-202
Section – 25(1)(a)
Whether grievance petition was required to be sent by registered post.
Under the provision of Section 25(1)(a) of the Act, it is the unambiguous obligation of the worker concerned to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within fifteen days no matter how it is submitted. Only legal obligation the worker has to ensure that he submits his grievance to the employer within fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance. The prime necessity is to ensure that it reaches. The question as to how it is sent is not at all a deciding factor inspite of the words, “…..shall submit his grievance to his employer, in writing, by registered post within fifteen days…..” in the Act.
BRTC Vs. Md. Esken Mollick & Anr. 15 BLT (AD) 156
Section-25 (1) (b)
(a) The respondent No. 2 had been Serving as Traffic Inspector — his duties were neither managerial nor administrative in nature—definition of worker in the concerned law, the respondent No. 2 was a worker under the B.R.T.C.
B.R.T.C. Vs Chairman First Labour Court 2BLT (HCD)-34
(b) Respondent No, 2 was charge sheeted for the offence of not depositing road tax for vehicle No. 3001 to the tune of Tk. 465/- —When the default was detected the authority directed him to deposit the tax and the fine imposed due to his default. which he was bound to pay by subsequent deposit of tax with fine didn’t absolve the respondent No. 2 from the liability of disciplinary action for Misconduct—authority had the power to take action for such Misconduct and accordingly the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded. So it cannot be said that the respondent worker was punished twice for the same offence — Rule is made absolute.
B.R.T.C. Vs. Chairman First Labour Court 2BLT (HCD)-34
Section-25 (1) (b)
Respondent No. 2 was employed as a permanent worker of the petitioner’s Jute Mills. On December 8, 1985 respondent No. 2 was served with a charge sheet on the allegation that he was caught red-handed on December 7, 1985 while stealing 14 bundles of finished goods (sewed sacks) of previous date with a view to showing the same to have been sewed by him in order to get more 1ages—an enquiry committee held enquiry in the matter and found respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges, leveled against him and accordingly he was dismissed from his service. He submitted a grievance petition before the petitioner which was rejected and then he filed the complaint case in the Labour Court — on consideration of the evidence, Labour Court allowed the complaint case. The Labour Court’s order was unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court Division:—Held Admittedly there was no removal of any goods from the possession of the petitioner mills- by respondent No 2 and as such the Labour Court rightly found that there was no offence of theft. At the most the delinquent might have been charged for an
attempt to realise enhanced wages by showing increased number of work; but the delinquent was charged for committing the offence of theft. As such the charge framed against the delinquent was a Misconceived one and it cannot be said that the Labour Court sat on a judgment over the findings Of the domestic enquiry committee—the petition is dismissed.
Khulna Labour Court, & Ors Vs. Chairman Khulna Labour Court & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-203.