Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

 

 

Section- 19

It appears that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Judges pf the High Court Division wrongly held the termination in question having been passed during pendency of the I.R.O. case is mala fide, although they themselves held that the IRO case itself was not maintainable. The impugned letter of termination does not contain any stigma upon respondent No, 2 and on the face of it, it is a termination simpliciter and is well covered by the provision of Section- 19 of the Act. The termination was not a sequal to any trade union activity on the part of respondent No. 2 nor does he claim that no termination benefit was given to him. [Para-10]

Adamji Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Chairman & Anr. 7 BLT(AD)-320

The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Read with Industrial Relations (Regulation) Ordinance, 1982 Section – 6(8)

Industrial dispute case — Praying for a direction upon the ‘Petitioner Mill to pay compensation to the workers covered by Shops and Establishment Act, 1965 — The claim raised by the respondent Union was an Industrial Dispute as contemplated in Industrial Relation Ordinance of 1969 ,read with Industrial Relations (Regulation) Ordinance of 1982. The respondent Union having failed to reach to a settlement by negotiation approached the conciliator to conciliate in dispute raised arid the conciliator also having failed to a conciliation, issued a certificate of failure and thereafter respondent Union under section 6(8) of the Ordinance of 1982 filed an application for adjudication of dispute. On the promulgation of the Ordinance of 1982 respondent Union had no other alternative but to file a case before the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised. So, it cannot be said that the case before the Labour Court was no maintainable under the Ordinance of 1982. The Ordinance of 1982 is a procedural law and got retrospectively and the claim of the respondent Union in the form of a Industrial Dispute can be very well adjudicated by the labour court under the said Ordinance. [Para – 15 & 20]

North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Labour Appellate Tribunal 5BLT (HCD)-202

Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

 

Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969,

 

Section—2(xxviii)

A
worker, is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management
and does not include a person who works under the control and supervision of a
contractor. The terms of employment must establish a relationship of master and
servant or employer and employee between the person employed and the
establishment, and it is not enough that the person is working in the premises
of a certain establishment.

Karnaphuli
Paper Mills Workers Union v. Karnaphuli Paper Mills Ltd. and another, 22 BLD (AD)
33.

 

Sections—5
and 10

It
cannot be said that Section 5 of the amending Act is violative of Article 38 of
the Constitution and so it cannot be said to be void.

Bangladesh
Biman Sramik Union and ors Vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions and others, 13 BLD
(HCD) 20.

Ref:
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. Jagadish Swarup, A.I.R. 1971(S.C966; Tamizuddin
Ahmed Vs, Pakistan, P.L.D. 1964 (S.C.)673; Kesoram Rayon Workmen’s Union Vs.
Registrar of Trade Unions, A.I.R. 1967 .(Cal)507—Cited.

 

Section—36

Procedure
and Powers of Labour Court

A
Labour Court acts as a civil court for a limited purpose. So far as the
procedural matter is concerned it will not exercise the powers like those given
in Order IX or Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which the
Civil Court exercises in a suit.

Md. Ibrahim
Shaikh Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, Khulna Division, Khulna and others, 15 BLD (HCD)
647.

Ref:
Muhammad Sabir Vs. The Agent Tarbela Joint Venture, Hazara, 1976 P.L.C. 185;
Management Board of A.R. Howlader Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, First
Labour Court, Dhaka, 28 DLR 368; Mis. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman,
Second Labour Court, Dhaka, 42 DLR 255—Cited.

 

Section—50

Where
in a given case the employer unilaterally acts detrimental to the emoluments
and benefits obtained under a terminated settlement such emoluments and
benefits shall continue to remain in force till a new agreement is reached
between the employer and the workers or an award is made by the Labour Court.

Zenith
Packages Limited Vs Member Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others, 20
BLD(AD)267

Ref:
The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J. Bahadur and ors, AIR 1980 (SC)
2181; Pakistan River Steamers Ltd. Vs. Province of East Pakistan and ors, PLD
1961 (SC)393—relied.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.