S.M. Quddus & others Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, 33 DLR (AD) (1981) 12

Case No: Civil Petition for special leave to appeal Nos. 58 to 60 of 1980

Judge: Ruhul Islam,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Citation: 33 DLR (AD) (1981) 12

Case Year: 1981

Appellant: S.M. Quddus

Respondent: Chairman, Labour Court

Subject: Labour Law,

Delivery Date: 1980-3-7

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
F.K.M.A. Munim, J.
Ruhul Islam, J.
Badrul Haider Chowdhury, J.
 
S.M. Quddus & others
……............Petitioners (in C.P. Nos. 58/80,  59/78, 60 of 1980)
Vs
Chairman, Labour Court, Ctg. & another
……………Respondents
 
Judgment
March 7, 1980
 
Employment of Labour (S.O.) Act (VIII of 1965)
Section 19(1)
The Labour Court found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to warrant the order of dismissal and set aside the orders of dismissal, but instead of ordering reinstatement of the petitioners directed the employer to give termination benefits to the respective petitioners under section 19 (1) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1956.
 
Lawyers Involved:
Md. Mozammel Huq, Senior Advocate instructed by Md. S. M. Huq, Advocate-on-Record —For the Petitioner (in all the petitions).
A. K. M. Shafiqur Rahman, Advocate instructed by Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record—For the Respondent No. 2 (in all the petitions).
Not represented—Respondent No. 1 (in all the petitions.)
 
Civil Petition for special leave to appeal Nos. 58 to 60 of 1980
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 6-6-79 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 993, 994 and 995 of 1978).
 
JUDGMENT
Ruhul Islam J:
 
These three petitions were heard analogously and are disposed of by one order. All the three judgments of the High Court Division dated June 6, 1979 in Writ Petition Nos. 993, 994 and 995 of 1978. The petitioner S.M. Quddus was an Office Assistant in the office of respondent No. 2 at Agrabad, Chittagong. The petitioner Amin Sharif was a cook in the canteen run by the respondent No. 2 at Agrabad, Chit­tagong. The petitioner Nuruzzaman was an Assistant Cook in the establishment of respondent No. 2 at Agrabad, Chittagong. All the three petitioners were charged with misconduct alleged to have been committed in connection with purchase of 15 seers of onion and 14 seers of fish for the Can­teen run by the Respondent No.2. They submitted their reply to the charge. An enquiry was held by an officer of the company and on receipt of the report the employer dis­missed the petitioners from their service. Against the order of dismissal the petitioners separately filed complaint case before the Labour Court, The Labour Court found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to warrant the order of dismissal, and set aside the order of dismissal, but instead of ordering reinstatement of the petitioners directed the employer to give termination benefits to the respective petitioners under section 19(1) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. 1965. The petitioners not being satisfied with this order moved the High Court Division. The High Court, however, did not find any ground for inter­ference. Hence the petitioner contended that the High Court Division failed to appre­ciate that the Labour Court acted without jurisdiction in directing the employer to give termination benefits to the petitioners instead of directing reinstatement to their service after setting aside the order of dismissal.
 
2. Mr. Mozammel Hoq, the learned coun­sel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Labour Court acted beyond the scope of section 25 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 in directing the employer to give termination benefit after setting aside the order of dismissal.
 
The contention of the petitioners does not appear to have any substance in view of the language of section 25 of the Act which pro­vides, inter alia, that in deciding the matter the Court may pass such orders including the orders regarding costs, as it may deem just and proper. From the judgment of the Labour Court it appears that while considering the prayer for reinstatement the Court observed as follows-
 
"Regarding reinstatement, I am of opinion that there is lack of confidence on the first party and as such he should not be thrust on the shoulder of the second party. Under the circumstances, he should be given termination benefits."
 
The reasons given by the Labour Court provides, in our opinion, sufficient justi­fication for granting termination benefits instead of reinstatement.
 
In that view of the matter, the petitions are dismissed.
 
Ed.