The Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

 

The Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

 

Section- 16

Discharged from service on the ground “continued ill-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. [Para- 11]

M/S. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Second Labour Court 5 BLT (AD)-289

 

Section- 19

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. [Para – 6]

Chittagong Urea Fertilizer Ltd. Vs. Labour Court Ctg & Ors. 3 BLT (AD)-201

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. [Para-9]

(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. [Para-lO]

B.R.T.C. Vs Chairman First Labour Court 2 BLT (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 wages—an enquiry committee held enquiry in the matter and found respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges, 1ev- elléd 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. [Para-5]

Khulna Labour Court & Ors Vs. Chairman Khulna Labour Court & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-203 .

The Employment of Labour (Standing orders) Act, 1965

 

The Employment of Labour (Standing orders) Act,
1965

 

Section-4

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-hoe 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. 11BLT(HCD)-380

 

Section-25(1)(a)

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. Jovnal Abedin Vs.
First Labour Court & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-202.