While the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind is available under section 21 of the General Clauses Act such power does not include the authority to take away a validly acquired right—

Whether only one who is affected by an order or a resolution has a right to be heard—Only one who is affected by the order or the resolution has a right to be heard and no one else.

When some legal rights have arisen in favour of a certain person as a result of particular order; those rights cannot be undone by a purported exercise of locus poenitentiae, in respect of the said order. The power passing an order rescinding or cancelling an earlier one which has given rise to certain rights shall have to be founded on some statutory provisions. In the context of the facts of this case, we are clearly of the opinion that as a result of cancellation of the notification under Acting President's Order, certain rights have accrued in favour of the owners of the industrial concern in question and such Tights cannot be taken away by the exercise of locus poenitentiae.

In the instant case, the Petitioner having obtained a right to join her post since there was a resolution both of the Appeal and Arbitration Committee and the Board reinstating her to her former post and that right cannot be taken away by the mala fide and motivated letter of the Board that they have stayed their previous decision…………………..(18 & 19) 

Whether non‑consideration of the previous record of the petitioner before inflicting punishment can be taken as a ground for striking out of the order of dismissal—

Sub‑section 6 of section 18 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965—

It is obligatory on the part of the employer to take into consideration the gravity of misconduct and the previous record of the worker, if there be any. In awarding punishment under this Act the employer shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the worker and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist.

Enquiry report of the enquiry officer having not been furnished along with the second show cause notice to the petitioner and the previous record of the petitioner having not been taken into consideration before awarding the punishment, the dismissal of the petitioner from service is unlawful……………………..(8-10) 

Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972; Article 102(2)(b)

Welfare of the Child is of Prime Consideration

 A petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the custody of a minor, whether would be equally competent without sending the petitioner before the Family Court or under the Guardians and Words Act--While dealing with matters referable to the custody of a child, whether the established legal position is that the welfare of the child is of prime Consideration.

The provisions of Article 102(2) (b) of the Constitution is very wide in nature as it provided that any person, and not only aggrieved person as in mandamus or certiorari or quo warranto, can take to the notice of the Court that some body is illegally detained by any person and pray for a declaration that the person is so detained illegally and without lawful authority and the Court shall; after being so satisfied, direct the person to be set at liberty at once.

A petition in the nature of habeas corpus for the custody of a minor would also be equally competent without sending the petitioner to exhaust his or her remedy before the Family Court or under the Guardian and Words Act or other Criminal Court which is neither expedient nor an equally efficacious remedy in situation like the one in the instant Case.

While dealing with matters referable to the custody of a child, the established legal position is that the welfare of the child is of prime consideration, he provisions of the personal law of the parties or even the provisions of the statute law as to such custody may be subject to that paramount need of the welfare of the child. 

Cancellation of the lease without hearing the lessee is to be violative of the principle of natural justice—Opportunity of being heard to the Lessee is must before Cancellation any Lease—

In the said case it has also been held that unless the lessee has violated any condition the Government cannot arbitrarily cancel the lease.

Government cannot cancel any such lease of fishery arbitrarily without giving the lessee an opportunity of being heard and without showing any breach of the conditions stipulated in the lease deed…………(6) 

Powers need to be exercised within the limits of the power and the law—

Powers given to an executive authority under the provision of a law need to exercise within the limits of the power and the law, following all the procedures that arc needed to be followed before that power is exercised and must be exercised justly, fairly and reasonably. All these are integral parts of the law itself and need not be super added……….. (15)

Public interest must effect directly the interest of a considerable section of the people

All interest to be called a public interest must effect directly the interest of a considerable section of the people in the locality or substantial amount of the cross section of the groups of people.

The interest of a private Bank is not such a public interest or any interest in which the interest of a public is directly connected for protecting the interest of a private commercial Bank the sovereign state power to impound a passport, to which passport and travel document a citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right, need not be exercised as that would be illegal being an act done traveling beyond the power and acting by arrogating to the government functionary a power not vested in law. 

Every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint, shall be rejected summarily.

Limitation Act, Article 86(b)— On a policy of insurance when the sum insured is payable after proof of the loss has been given to or received by the insurers”- “the period of limitation is 3(three) years” and time from which periods bearings to run is- “The date of the occurrence causing the loss”.

“Time from which period begins to run” provides that it shall run from the date of the occurrence causing the loss accordingly there is no doubt that the suit have to filed within three years from the date of occurrence causing the loss. In the instant case the date of occurrence that is the fire broke out in the mill on 25.03.1987, and as such, the suit as filed on 22.08.1990 is hopeless barred by limitation.

In the instant case the third part of Article 86(b) of the Limitation Act is very clear and there is hardly any scope to interpret the same in any other way……… (15 &18) 

Whether termination benefit are to get or not—

Question of termination benefit comes when such services were terminated either by the employer or by the employee themselves. In the instance case , it appears from the record that the petitioner upon receiving the grievance petition under section 25(a) promptly replied that the services of respondent No.2 were never terminated and further directed the respondent No. 2 to join their services within 7 days from the date of receipt of such notice. When fact of termination of service has not been brought home by either side the question of termination benefit does not arise and the award of termination benefit is liable to be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and to be of no legal effect…….(8)