Serajul Islam Vs. Bangladesh Consumer's Supply Company Ltd. and another, 45 DLR (AD) (1993) 100

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 355 of 1989

Judge: Shahabuddin Ahmed ,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Syed Amirul Islam,,

Citation: 45 DLR (AD) (1993) 100

Case Year: 1993

Appellant: Serajul Islam

Respondent: Bangladesh Consumer's Supply Company Ltd.

Subject: Labour Law,

Delivery Date: 1990-8-16

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Shahabuddin Ahmed, CJ.
MH Rahman, J.
ATM Afzal, J.
Latifur Rahman, J.
 
Serajul Islam
.................................Petitioner
Vs.
Bangladesh Consumer's Supply Company Ltd. and another
…………….............Respondents
 
Judgment
August 16th, 1990
 
Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act (VIII of 1965)
Section 18(6)
It is purely a matter of discretion of the employer to take into consideration previous good services of an employee before awarding him punishment.…. (3)
 
Lawyers Involved:
Syed Ameerul Islam, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Sharifuddin Chaklader, Advocate-on- Record - For the Petitioner
Not Represented –The Respondents
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 355 of 1989
(From the Judgment and order dated 6.6.89 passed by the High Court Division, Dhaka, in Writ Petition No. 113 of 1987).
 
JUDGMENT
 
Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ.
 
Petitioner, dismissed employee of the respondent- Bangladesh Consumers Supply Co. Ltd. is challenging an order of the High Court Division dated 6 June 1989 reversing, in a writ petition, Labour Court's order for his reinstatement upon setting aside the employees order for dismissal.
 
2. He was a salesman under the respondent in their Dhanmondi shop. On the basis of an audit report he was suspended from his service and a regular charge-sheet was submitted to him asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed for defalcation of Tk. 42,215/19. He denied the allegation saying that the audit report was wrong in that the handling shortage as permissible by two circular orders were not considered and further that he deposited the spoiled goods worth Tk. 8850.00. Being not satisfied with his explanation the defendant constituted a Committee of Enquiry. The petitioner appeared before the Committee and gave the same explanation, but the Committee submitted a report holding him guilty of misappropriation of the amount. The respondent, employer, deducted the value of the spoiled goods Tk. 8885/50 and held him guilty of defalcation of the balance of Tk. 33,329.89 and by an order dated 20.5.86 dismissed him from service. He challenged the dismissal by filing a complaint case before the 2nd Labour Court, Dhaka, which, after hearing the parties, set aside the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement holding that in calculating the shortage the two circular orders, Ext. 11 and 12, were not considered. Respondent challenged the order of Labour Court by Writ Petition No. 113 of 1987; and the learned Judges of the High Court Division allowed the petition and reversed the Labour Court's order observing that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by sitting over the domestic tribunal's order as a court of appeal.
 
3. Mr. Syed Ameerul Islam, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has contended that the two circular orders, Ext. 11 and 12, allowed certain percentage of shortage and had these two circulars been taken into consideration there would have been no shortage at all. The learned Judges of the High Court Division took into consideration this very question and found that the report of enquiry itself shows that the two circulars as to permissible shortage were taken into consideration. The next contention of the learned Advocate is that the respondent while awarding the punishment disregarded the provision of section 18 (6) of the Standing Orders Act, 1965. The learned Judges found that this section gave discretion to the employer to take into consideration previous good service of an employee before awarding him punishment and observed that it was purely a matter of discretion of the employer. We, therefore, find no violation of any provision of law in High Court Division's order restoring the petitioner's dismissal from service. The petition is dismissed.
 
Ed.