PUBALI BANK LIMITED Vs. CHAIRMAN, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by leave is against the judgment and order dated May 8, 1997 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 1905 of 1990 discharging the Rule obtained against the judgment and order dated June, 2, 1990 of the 1st Labour Court, Dhaka passed in Complaint Case No. 140 of 1984 allowing the same and thereupon setting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.8.1984 and making direction to the appellant (second party before the Labour Court) to reinstate the Respondent No. 2 (first party before the Labour Court) in the service in his former post with full back wages.

(2.) The Respondent No. 2 filed the aforementioned Complaint Case stating, inter alia, that on 1.6.1971 he was appointed as Godown Inspector by the appellant and later on he was promoted to the post of Inspector of advances on 29.11.1977 with effect from 1.12.1977 with terms and conditions of service to that of previous post, that the appellant served on the Respondent No. 2 charge sheet on 8.3.1979 and he replied to that denying the allegation made in the charge-sheet, that he was placed under suspension on 20.6.1979 that he was served with two charge sheets, one was of 8.10.1979 and the other was of 19.5.1982, that the Respondent No. 2 replied to the allegations made in the said two charge sheets and claimed to be innocent, that the appellant appointed an Inquiry officer to inquire into the charges framed against the Respondent No. 2 but the Inquiry Officer did neither held any inquiry of the charges leveled nor examined any witness to prove the charges leveled against Respondent No. 2 in his presence, that Respondent No.2 was not allowed to cross-examine the witness examined by the appellant and that Respondent No. 2 was not given proper opportunity to defend himself, that Inquiry officer did not find anything against the Respondent No.2 and the charges leveled were not established against the Respondent No. 2 that the appellant dismissed the Respondent No. 2 on 21.8.1984 and he received the said order of dismissal on 30.8.1984, that Respondent No. 2 sent grievance petition as against the order of dismissal by registered post on 11.9.1984 and also by special messenger, that the appellant did not reply to his grievance petition nor heard him.

(3.) The appellant contested the complaint case by filing written objection denying the material averments made in the petition of complaint and stating, inter alia, that the Respondent No.2 was appointed by the appellant as Godown Inspector on 1.6.1971 and that on 1.12.1977 he was promoted to the rank of Inspector of advances, that the Respondent No.2 was charge sheeted on 8.10.1979 and 19.5.1982 for (i) defying and disobeying the order of controlling authority, (ii) for creating shortfall in the stock of goods pledge to the Bank by the borrowers, (iii) negligence of duties and (iv) committing other misconducts, that all charges were duly inquired into in accordance with law and service Rules and that on the basis of the enquiry report Respondent No. 2 was dismissed with approval from the appropriate authority, that Respondent No. 2 is an officer entrusted with the duty of the administration and managerial nature and hence being not a worker complaint case under the Employment of Labour (standing Orders) Act is not maintainable, that enquiry was held in accordance with law by providing opportunity to the Respondent No.2 to defend himself, that Inquiry officer found the Respondent No.2 guilty of the charges leveled against him.