SIDDIQUR RAHMAN Vs. CHAIRMAN, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule Nisi was issued at the instance of the petitioner calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the decision and order of the Chairman of the Labour Court, Khulna passed in Case No, C9 of 1997 (Annexure-A) should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) The petitioner was initially appointed on 26-1-1977 as Bag Checker worker under the respondent No. 2 company and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Harakal helper. The petitioner being a Trade Union leader of the respondent mill was elected as the Vice-President of the Union in the session 1993-95 but he could not succeed in the election held in 1995. Because of his participation in different elections he had disputes with the ruling CBA leaders and because of the conspiracy of the respondent Mill Authority and some leaders of the union he was dismissed from service on 5-3-1994. Subsequently, he was reinstated on 6-12-1994. Though the petitioner was discharging his duty with sincerity, honesty and devotion the respondent No.2 Mill Authority raised false allegations against him on 12-8-1996. The petitioner gave reply to the charge framed by the respondent No. 2 Mill Authority. Without considering his reply the Mill Authority constituted an Enquiry Committee for investigation of the matter. The Enquiry Committee was not neutral. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself. On the basis of false assurance given by the Enquiry Committee the petitioner put his signature on some blank papers. The Enquiry Committee having used the said blank papers submitted report. The respondent No. 2 Company on the basis of the Enquiry Report dismissed him from service on 15-2-1997.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner sent a grievance petition to the respondent No. 2 employer by registered post dated 28-2-1997. But the respondent No.2 company did not cancel the order of dismissal. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner filed a case being Case No. C9 of 1997 before the Labour Court.