ADAMJEE JUTE MILLS LTD. Vs. CHAIRMAN, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by leave, has been prepared by M/s Adamjee Jute Mills Limited and its Deputy General Manager from the Judgment and order dated 10-3-97 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2122 of 1995 discharging the Rule Nisi and upholding thereby the decision given on 4.9.95 by the Third Labour Court, Dhaka in Complaint Case No. 19 of 1993 under section 25 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, briefly 'the Act' allowing the case and directing re-instatement of respondent No. 2 in the service of appellant No. 1

(2.) Relevant facts, in brief, are: - respondent No. 2 Md. Ismail since 10.5.65 had been serving as a mistry in Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. His service was first terminated on 10.1.75, but on consideration of his representation the concerned authority reinstated him on 6.9.77. Again he was terminated from service on 9.3.88 but in view of his representation the same was withdrawn on 12.4.89 subject to the condition that the money he had received on account of termination benefit should be refunded. Accordingly he refunded the money taken on 10.5.89. Thereafter on 11.5.89 a letter of reinstatement was issued allowing him to join in service on condition that he would not get any salary for a period of 13 months 4 days so long he had been out of service. In pursuance thereof he joined in service. Subsequently he submitted a representation to the concerned authority claiming arrears of salary in respect of the period contained in the said letter dated 11.5.89. Having failed to get any relief in the matter he instituted I.R.O. Case No. 43 of 1989 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, briefly I.R.O, claiming arrear of salary for the aforesaid period. During pendency of the said IRO case while he had been on yearly leave appellant No. 2 by an office order dated 26.3.93 again terminated his service challenging which respondent No. 2 instituted the aforesaid complaint case under section 25 of the Act alleging, inter alia, that the impugned termination is a malafide one being in fact an order of dismissal in the garb of termination with a view to defeating the purpose of the aforesaid pending IRO case.

(3.) The appellants contested both the cases by filling written statements denying the material allegations of respondent No. 2. Their case, inter alia, is that I.R.O. Case No. 43 of 1989 is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the same was not instituted in relation to any industrial dispute or in the manner prescribed therefore, as provided in Section 43 of the IRO, that the complaint case was also not maintainable, in view of the fact that against an order of termination simplicitie no case lies under Section 25 of the Act.