Md. Abdul Kader Vs. Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation, VII ADC (2010) 481

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 158 of 2009

Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. Md. Abu Siddique,Mr. A. K. M. Badrudduza,,

Citation: VII ADC (2010) 481

Case Year: 2010

Appellant: Md. Abdul Kader

Respondent: Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation

Subject: Labour Law,

Delivery Date: 2010-2-15

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Abdul Matin J
ABM Khairul Haque J
Md. Muzammel Hossain J
Surendra Kumar Sinha J
 
Md. Abdul Kader
…………………....Petitioner
Vs.
Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation and others
……………….......Respondents
 
Judgment
February 15, 2010.
 
Petitioner had no licence or knowledge in respect of driving which had been clearly stated before the enquiry officer as such the labour court has acted with lawful authority allowed the case to the effect that the principle of natural justice has been denied to the petitioner while dismissing him from service in as much as the petitioner utmost sincerely performed his duties as time keeper and that cleaning vehicles of the corporation was the duty of the cleaner who was two rank below to the rank of the petitioner thus the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside by this Court. …. (13)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Abu Siddique, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.
Badruddoza, Advocate instructed by Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.1.
Not represented-Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 158 of 2009.
(From the judgment and order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.661 of 2004.)
 
JUDGMENT
Md. Abdul Matin J.
 
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.661 of 2004 making the Rule absolute setting aside the judgment and decision dated 06.12.2003 passed by the Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka in Complaint Case No.5 of 1996 directing the writ petitioners to reinstate the peti­tioner with full back wages and other ben­efits within 30 days.
 
2. The facts, in short, are that the petition­er lodged a Complaint Case being No.5 of 1996 before the Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka contending, inter-alia, that he joined the corporation as a time keeper in the 1st week of March, 1983 and had been working very sincerely with devo­tion to duty and with satisfaction of the superiors since his appointment till dis­missal and that suddenly the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.09.1995 on the allegation of driving bus No. Cha-8373 on ramp without due authorization and as such caused damage to the tune of Tk.85,000/- and as such he was served with a show cause notice.
 
3. The petitioner submitted his reply deny­ing the material allegation made therein to the effect that on the aforesaid date the duty of the petitioner was up to 10 P.M. and after completion of his duty he went to the Mosque for prayer and then went home and that the petitioner was not aware as to who drove the vehicle and caused damage. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the false allegation out of previous grudge and enmity.
 
4. After submission of the said reply the respondent was pleased to withdraw the order of suspension and put the petitioner on duty and he was working as before till the petitioner was dismissed from service and get annual increment and pay.
 
5. By letter dated 21.10.1995 and 27.11.1995 the petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry officer which the petitioner did while the enquiry officer did not examine any witness of the corpo­ration in presence of the petitioner inas­much as the attendance register of the petitioner has not been examined so as to ascertain the duty time of the petitioner.
 
6. Subsequently the respondent No.2 again issued 2nd show cause notice on 23.12.1995 and the petitioner on getting the same submitted its reply in the same way as before denying the false allega­tions brought against him. Subsequently by letter dated 14.01.1996 the petitioner was most illegally dismissed from his per­manent service which was received on 16.01.1996. Thus the same is mala fide, void, illegal and without lawful authority.
 
7. Afterwards on 21.01.1996 the petitioner submitted his grievance notice to the Chairman under registered post to redress his grievances but the same was not redressed as such the petitioner has been compelled to file the aforesaid case.
 
8. Said Complaint Case No.5 of 1996 was heard on 06.12.2003 by the Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka who upon hearing the parties and on a careful con­sideration of the facts, circumstances and the materials on record was pleased to allow the case and directed the respondent writ petitioners to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and other benefits within 30 days.
 
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid lawful and bona fide judgment and order passed by the Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka, Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation field Writ Petition being No.661 of 2004 before the High Court Division and obtained Rule Nisi and the High Court Division after hearing the par­ties made the Rule absolute and set aside the judgment of the labour court.
 
10. As against the judgment and order of the High Court Division the petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal.
 
11. Heard Mr. Md. Abu Siddique, the learned Advocate-on-Record appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Badruddoza, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and perused the petition and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other papers on record.
 
12. The learned Advocate-on-Record sub­mits that the High Court Division before passing the impugned judgment and order did not at all consider that the Chairman, Second Labour Court has committed no error of law and passed the impugned judgment in accordance with the provision of law and that the petitioner being a time keeper was on duty on the date of alleged occurrence up to 10 P.M. and that while he was on duty vehicle being No.Cha-8373 was not on the ramp and that during his duty period, no accident as alleged had taken place inasmuch as the worker had no knowledge with respect to said mishap nor he had any involvement in it, hence the petitioner was not responsible at all, thus the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside.
 
13. He further submits that the High Court Division overlooked the very important aspect of the case that the petitioner had no licence or knowledge in respect of driving which had been clearly stated before the enquiry officer as such the labour court has acted with lawful author­ity allowed the case to the effect that the principle of natural justice has been denied to the petitioner while dismissing him from service inasmuch as the petition­er utmost sincerely performed his duties as time keeper and that cleaning vehicles of the corporation was the duty of the cleaner who was two rank below to the rank of the petitioner thus the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is liable to be set aside by this Court.
 
The above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner merit considera­tion.
 
Leave is granted to consider the same upon condonation of delay.
 
Security of Tk. 1,000/- is to be deposit­ed within 1(one) month.
 
Preparation of the paper book is dis­pensed with as prayed for.
 
Ed.