Amir Hossain Bhuiya (Md) ...Petitioner VS  Harisul Haq Bhuiya and others...

Judgment 

This Rule is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsingdi in Title Appeal No. 3 of

"Civil Revision No. 2046 of 1998.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of the Rule, in short, are that, the petitioner as plaintiff brought above suit against the defendants on the averments made in the plaint that he is an employee of the Urea Fertilizer Factory at Ghorasal (hereinafter referred to as the factory) of which opposite party Nos. 1. 3. 4 and 5 are members with opposite party No. 2 as Chairman of the Election Upa-parishad Factory Employees Union, for the purpose of holding election of the Office-bearers of the Factory Employees Union for 1997-1998, issued a notification dated 13-7-97 and the said Upa Parishad prepared a voters' list and fixed 31-7-1997 for holding the election. The Election of upa- parishad of the factory enlisted pesh Imam, Muazzins of the Mosque situated within the premises of the factory, teachers together with other employees of educational institutions like School and College of the factory, staff member of Medical Center and Hospital as voters. The aforesaid persons do not fall within the category of workers as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act 1965. The voters' list in question as published by the opposite parties vide their notification dated 13-7- 1997 is illegal and without jurisdiction. Hence the suit

3. The opposite parties as defendants have contested the suit by filing a written statement wherein they denied all the material averments made in the plaint. Their case, inter alia, is that the voters' list had been legally prepared and published and the list has the sanction of law. The pesh Imam. Muazzins of the Mosque of the factory, the teachers and other employees of the educational institutions of the factory and the employees of the Medical Centre and Hospital get their salary from the fund of the factory. In the elections held previously the aforesaid categories of persons were on the voters list and they participated in the elections without any objection from any quarter. It is further asserted by the opposite parties in the written statement thatthe suit is not maintainable in its present form and that in any event it is liable to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court held trial of the suit upon recording of the evidence of witnesses. He decreed the suit of the plaintiff petitioner by this judgment and decree dated 13-11-97 and declared the voters list as illegal and defective. Against the said judgment and decree opposite party No. 1 as appellant preferred the Title Appeal No. 3 of 1998 in the court of the District Judge, Narsingdi. The appeal was transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, Narsingdi who heard the same and allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment and decree and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-5-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsingdi in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1998 dismissing the suit of the petitioner after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioner moved this court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the Rule.

6. The opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 5 have opposed the Rule.