Dismissed employees governed under ‘master-servant’ rules can only claim benefits

block
(From previous issue) :
In the reported decision one Md. Alauddin, filed a suit for declaration of the nullity of the order of his dismissal from service in a co-operative land mortgage bank on the ground that he was a government servant. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial Court, but the High Court Division in revision held the order of dismissal was a nullity. It was contended by the learned Advocate for the employee that the employees of the said Bank were governed by the Government Service Rules as top establishment and disciplinary matters and the Appellate Division held in the reported decision that even if it was accepted that Government Service Rules had been made applicable to the employees of the said Bank, but that application was not under any statutory authority and was mere adoption at the option of the Bank and therefore rule of master and servant shall apply in that case.”
22. “When any worker as permanent or temporary to be terminated or dismissed from service he can claim pecuniary benefit not reappointment.” This decision has also got support from the case Uttara Bank Ltd. vs Shahabuddin Khan, 59 DLR 166, the case of Managing Director of Rupali Bank Ltd. vs Tafazal Hossain, 44 DLR (AD) 260, the case of Senior Manager, Mis Dosta Textile Mills Ltd. vs Sudhansu Bikash Nath 40 DLR (AD) 45. In all these decisions it is held that the Labour Law, such as the Emplacement of Labour (Standing Order) Act, or the industrial agreement showing as special law but the Code of Civil Procedure which shows is a general law. The latter affects the community a large; all people of the state are governed by it. While the former relates to and affects particular persons or things; it appears upon a selected class, rather than the public generally. Relation between a general law and a special law is governed by the principle known as Generalia Specialibus non derogant-which in English means, “general words do not derogate from the special.”
23. As such when the special law does not provide for re-appointment of a worker in a private institution after termination or dismissal from service the suit is not at all maintainable.
24. We find substance in the rule.
25. In the result, the rule is made absolute without any order as to cost.
26. The judgment and decree 24-6-2008 passed by the. learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Chittagong dismissing Other Appeal No. 416 of 2007 affirming those dated 30-9-2007 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, 3rd Court, Chittagong decreeing Other Suit No. 74 of 1941 are set aside. Other Suit No. 74 of 1991 is dismissed.
27. The plaintiff if he has some legal dues then he can approach the authority for his grievance. If the plaintiff approach it is desirable that his case should be considered sympathetically. plaintiffs want to file a suit for compensation, it is upto him to file the same as it is his case that he was terminated in the garb of dismissal.
Send down the lower court records.
Communicate this order at once.
(Concluded)
block