BANGLADESH BIMAN CORPORATION ORDINANCE (XIX
OF 1977)
Sections—7,
14 and 31(2) (d)
When
the legislature in the parent legislatoin did not signify any intention to
classify the employees of Biman into freedom fighters nd non—freedom fighters,
such classification could not he by the Government in its Rule making power
while exercising the delegated authority under the parent legislation, since
that would amount to acting beyond the .purposes of the legislation itself—Rule
Conferring two years ante-dated seniority to freedom fighter employees of
Birnan is ultra vires rule making power under the Ordinance—Bangladesh Biman
Employees (Seniority of Freedom fighters) Rules, 1980, Rules 2, 3 and 4.
Amirul Islam
and others Vs, Bangladesh Birnan Corporation and others; 2 BLD (AD) 1.
Sections—14,
29 and 31(2)(d)
Granting
of certain service benefits like two years ante dated seniority to some of the
former employees of the PIAC absorbed in the service of Bangladesh Biman
Corporation is relatable to the conditions of service of Corporations employees
and, therefore, to the purpose of Bangladesh Biman Ordinance— Rule 4 of
Bangladesh Biman Employees (Seniority of Freedom Fighters) Rules, 1980 not
ultra Vires.
Amirul Islam
and others Vs. Bangladesh Biman Corporation and others; 2 BLD (HCD) 1.
Sections—14
and 31
Service
matter—Fixation
of seniority Interpretation of Statute—Meaning of the words existing
‘employees’ and ‘new entrants’ in the regulations made under the Bangladesh
Biman Corporation Ordinance— Whether employees of the Biman whose service has
been transferred to the Corporation are ‘existing employees’ or employees of
the Biman as well as those appointed by the corporation before the coming into
force of the Regulations are also ‘existing employees’?
Majority
view per Shahabuddin Ahmed, .J (B.H. Chowdhury and M.H. Rahman JJ Concurring)-.-The
Ordinance was promulgated in 1977 with a provision for making appointments of
officers and employees of the Corporation—In exercise of power conferred by
Article 30 the Corporation has made the Regulations in December 1979 and it
came into force from the date—The respondents having been appointed earlier
than the Regulations, that is, in June 1978 cannot be brought into the class of
‘new entrants’ as referred to in Rule 18(a) for the purpose of determination of
seniority unless the Regulations were given effect from the date of such
appointment or from the date of the Ordinance—’Existing employees’ therefore
mean those employees who were in the Corporations service when the Regulations
were made and published—The employees who are appointed after the Regulation
came into force are the ‘new entrant’s—Bangladesh Biman Regulations, 1979,
Rules 18 and 19.
Minority
view per Fazie Munim, CJ. (A.T.M. Afzal, J concurring)—The
reference to new entrants’ in the Regulation 18(a) and existing employees’ in
Regulation 19 is to the newly appointed employees of the Corporation as
mentioned under section 14 and the employees of the Biman who stood transferred
to the Corporation under section 31(d) of the Ordinance respectively—The
Regulations cannot in the absence of such classification in the Ordinance
divide the employees into two categories, such as, ‘new entrants’ and ‘existing
employees’—It is only the parent Act i.e, the Ordinance which must provide the
service structure of the Corporation’s employees—What will be the service structure
cannot, unless authorised expressly by the Ordinance, be affected by or under
the Regulation—Provisions of the Regulations 18(a) and 19 must be construed
with reference to sections 14 and 3 1(d) of the Ordinance which, by their
terms, created the demarcation between the two groups of employees, namely,
those employees of the Biman who stood transferred to the Corporation on the
date of the coming into operation of the Ordinance and those employees who will
be appointed after the Corporation came into force.
Parent Law
shall prevail—There is no dispute that provisions of a subordinate legislation
must be in conformity with those of its parent legislation and in the case of
any conflict the provisions of the parent law shall prevail—In this case the
Ordinance is the parent law and the Regulations are its subordinate
legislation—and if there is any vacuum in the subordinate legislation in
respect of any matter,. but about which specific provision has been made in the
parent law, then the provision of the parent law shall be read into the
subordinate legislation.
Bangladesh
Biman corporation Vs. Syed Aftab Ali and others; 7BLD (AD) 192.