General Manager, Jamuna Oil Company Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, 53 DLR (AD) (2001) 28

Case No: Civil Review Petition Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999

Judge: AM Mahmudur Rahman ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Shafique Ahmed ,Mr. Md. Abdul Momen Chowdhury,,

Citation: 53 DLR (AD) (2001) 28

Case Year: 2001

Appellant: General Manager, Jamuna Oil Company Ltd.

Respondent: Chairman, Labour Court

Subject: Labour Law,

Delivery Date: 2000-5-9

 
Supreme Court  
Appellate Division  
(Civil)
 
Present:
Latifur Rahman CJ 
Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J
AMM Rahman J
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury J 
Kazi Ebadul Hoque J 
 
General Manager, Jamuna Oil Company Ltd.
................Petitioner  
Vs.
Chairman, Labour Court
...............Respondents  
 
Judgment  
May 9, 2000.
 
The Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908)
Order XLVII, Rule I
What the petitioner failed to get in the appeal after a full-fledged argument can not be obtained in a review petition. Reconsideration of points wrongly or rightly considered in an appeal decided by this Division without betraying apparent error on the face of record is no ground of review of a judgment………………(3)   
 
Lawyers Involved: 
Shafique Ahmed, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on -Record — For the Petitioner (In both the cases).  
Abdul Momen Chowdhury, Advocate instructed by Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on -Record— For the Respondents (In both the cases).
 
Civil Review Petition Nos. 16 and 17 of 1999.  
 
JUDGMENT
AM Mahmudur Rahman J.
 
This application for review of the judgment dated 14-2-1999 of this Division made in Civil Appeal Nos. 41 and 42 of 1995 is founded on the statement that petition filed Civil Appeal Nos. 41 and 42 of 19 challenging the judgment and order of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition Nos. 1617 of 1991 and 1454 of 1991  stating that an agreement was signed on 8th May, 1973 between the petitioner Company and the Collective Bargaining Agent of Workers Association of the Company, briefly, CBA, including the term that depot and terminal workers would work for 48 hours per week while clerical staff of the Chittagong main office and the terminal office would work for 38 1/2 hours per week and that the overtime rate would be paid in accordance with provisions of Factories Act, 1965 and the Shops and Establishments Act, 1965. Pursuant to the settlement the petitioner framed the Rules dated 1.12-1973 wherein the rate of the overtime payment of the workers in excess of normal working hours of 48 hours in a week was fixed as per provisions of Factories Act, 1965. Subsequently on 16-11-1985 the CBA submitted a charter of demand questioning calculation of overtime as illegal and contrary to the agreement stating that the demands were resolved by the subsisting settlement dated 26-2-1986 and according to Clause 18 of this settlement the petitioner passed administrative order on 1-7-1986 keeping existing calculation for overtime by operation of clause (c) of the agreement dated 26-2-1986 and that the claim of overtime allowance at the rate double the rate of ordinary wages in excess of 38½ hours and 44 hours is not allowable unless they work for more than 48 hours a week. Accordingly the IRO Case Nos.59 and 63 of 1986 al were and liable to be dismissed and  that the High Court Division failed to notice this aspect of the case and illegally affirmed the decision of the Labour Court and discharged the Rule Nisi  issued in the aforesaid writ petition.
 
2. The petitioner seeks review on the following grounds that in absence of any law or award or settlement securing any right to claim overtime allowance at the rate double the rate of ordinary wages in excess 38½ hours and 44 hours is cannot be allowed unless they work for more than 48 hours a week and that fixing of working hours at 38½ hours instead of 48 hours does not ipso facto entitle the workers to get overtime allowance at the rate double the rate of ordinary rate of wages for working beyond 38 ½ hours and that by reducing a maximum limit of working hours to 38½ and 44 hours in place of 48 hours through settlement arrived at, the workers and the clerical staff can automatically get overtime allowance at the rate double the rate for ordinary rate for working beyond 38½  hours and 48 hours because the same has not been specifically provided either in the settlement or any law or award and that this Division failed to consider that neither section 39(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor section 31 of the of Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 have any manner of application to the present case for allowing overtime allowance at the rate double the rate of ordinary wages although there is no specific condition in the said settlement by which working hours was reduced and that this Division failed to take into consideration that CBA’s Charter of Demand dated 16-11-1985 for allowing overtime allowance at double the ordinary rate of wages in excess of 44 hours a week without. working in excess 48 hours having failed on collective bargaining and negotiation the case under section 34 of, IRO such claim as secured in law is misconceived and have been dismissed in view of section 58 of the Factories Act, 1965 and sections 8 and 9 of the Shops and Establishment Act, 1965.  
 
3. None of the grounds taken for review in this petition and urged is a ground for review of the judgment passed by this Division in the aforementioned two appeals. Rather it seems that the petitioner pressing the grounds wants us to sit over our judgments as a Court of appeal simply because we failed to consider the points raised in the grounds of this review petition. What the petitioner failed to get in the appeal after a full-fledged argument can not be obtained in a review petition like the present one which in a circuitous way calls for rehearing of the appeals. Reconsideration of points wrongly or rightly considered in an appeal decided by this Division without betraying apparent enor on the face of record is no ground of review of a judgment.  
 
4. The submissions do not merit any consideration.  
 
The petitioners are dismissed by this judgment.  
 
Ed.