ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1980
Section-4
Civil Courts
jurisdiction
Whether
Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of service matter
which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative
Tribunal—Section 9 of C.P.C. provides that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to
try all suits of a civil nature excepting those trial of which is expressly or
impliedly barred—Clause 2 of Article 117 of the Constitution has debarred the
Court from entertaining any proceeding in respect of any matter falling within
the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal—Administrative Tribunal has
exclusive jurisdiction in service matters— So Civil Court has no jurisdiction
in the matter—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2)—Code of Civil
Procedure (V of 1908) S.9—Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981) S. 4.
Md. Habibur
Rahman Vs. The Accountant General, Works and Wapda and others. 7 BLD (HCD) 44.
Ref.
22DLR (SC) 98; 17 DLR (SC) 515.
Section—4
Jurisdiction
of Labour Court—Jurisdiction with regard to an employee of the Railway
Board—The respondent’s petition before the Labour Court relates to terms and
conditions of his service—In view of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 the
Administrative Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and
consequently the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the
application—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969(XIII of 1969) S.34.
The General
Manager (West), Bangladesh Railway and another Vs. The Chairman, Labour Court,
Rajshahi and another; 8 BLD (HCD) 125.
Section—4
Transfer
of a trade union leader—Plea of, protection by a person in the service of a statutory
public authority—Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give
protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not
applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities
like the H.B.F.C.—The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is
that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or
non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the
matter clearly comes within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal which
has the full power to give complete relief to applicant. The right of a trade
union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the
Constitution—Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIIII of 1969) S. 47B
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 117(2).
Abdul Mannan
Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another; 10 BLD
(AD) 71.
Ref:
(1968) (1) All.RR. 433(439-440); (1948) 1 K.B. 721; 33DLR (AD) 305.
Administrative
Tribunal
Extent
of its authority and ouster of jurisdiction of other Courts—The Constitution
uses the word ‘Court’ to mean any Court of law including the Supreme Court—Not
to speak of any other Court even the Supreme Court is constitutionally debarred
from exercising any jurisdiction over any matter covered by the jurisdiction of
the Administrative Tribunal —The Constitution of People’s Republic of
Bangladesh has designated the Administrative Tribunal as an exclusive forum—
The Tribunal does not need the umbrella of this Court’s writ jurisdiction for
implementation of its decisions—The Administrative Tribunals Act ought to be
interpreted in such a manner that is consistent with the constitutional
provision and the legislative intent it may provide for a complete and
self-sufficient remedy to the affected parties—Constitution of Bangladesh,
1972, Articles 102, 117 and 152(1).
Md. Saifur
Rahm.an Vs. Bangladesh through The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and
others, 10 BLD (HCD) 205.
Administrative
Tribunal
Question
of executing its decisions and orders—How the Tribunal will execute its own
decisions and orders is very much a matter within the exclusive and
unencroach-able jurisdiction of the Tribunal itself—The Administrative Tribunal
is the sole arbiter of the method and procedure with regard to the execution of
its decisions and orders—It will follow the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure relating to execution of a decree as far as practicable, but as and
when it is not practicable to do so, the Tribunal has the fullest jurisdiction
to devise its own method and procedure to execute its decisions—The. legislature
has armed the Tribunal to be an effective body and it need not be told by the
writ Court as to the provisions that it may require to apply for execution of
its decision— If it is wrong in its decision, the Administrative Appellate
Tribunal will correct it—All questions and problems relating to execution will
have to be resolved by the Administrative Tribunal or the Administrative
Appellate Tribunal within the periphery of the Act and the Rules—Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1980 (VII of 1981) Ss. 4—12—The Administrative Tribunal Rules,
1982, R.7.
Md. Saifur
Rahman Vs. Bangladesh, Through The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and
others, 10 BLD (HCD) 205.
Administrative
Tribunal
The
law relating to the service of the employees under the Government and also
under the Bank, Administrative Tribunal Act (VII of 1981) was promulgated on
5th of June, 1981 by which the Administrative Tribunal was established giving
exclusive jurisdiction to it to hear and determine the application made by any
person in the service of the Republic in respect of the terms and conditions of
the service and jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981.
Administrative
Tribunal Amendment Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance LX of 1984) the employees of the
Banks have been brought within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals set
up under the Act—and as such no suit or proceeding can be instituted in the
civil Court after the date of amendment—The civil Court ceases to have any
jurisdiction to try the suit arising out of the order of dismissal of the
petitioner from the service of the Bank.
Administrative
Tribunal—When
an Administrative Tribunal is set up no court shall entertain any proceeding or
make any order in respect of any matter falling within the jurisdiction of such
Tribunal.
When
by a statute an authority is vested in another Tribunal with exclusive power
over any subject matter, a civil Court ceases to have any jurisdiction to try
such suit having jurisdiction.
Md. Mansur
Ali Vs. Janata Bank and others; 11 BLD (HCD) 23.
Ref:42DLR(HCD)220;39DLR(HCD)306;33DLR(AD)143;
AIR, 1975 (Karnatak) 200;AIR. 1972 (Rajsthan) 241; 22DLR (S.C.) 389; PLD 1969
(Karachi) 349; A.I.R. 1967(SC) 96; A.I.R. 1966 (Cal) 272(277); PLD1964
(Karachi) 149; A.I.R. 1962 (Punjab) 218; 1 0DLR632; 9DLR559; A.I.R. 1 949(PC)
156; A.I.R.1944 (Patna) 54; A.I.R. 1938 (Mad) 53; AIR. 1938(Ra) 125; A.I.R.
1936 (Patna) 535; A.1.R. 1953 (All) 842; A.I.R.1933(Bom)185; PLD 1969
(Karachi)349; A.I.R. 1919 (Bom)798; AIR. 1918 (Cal) 143.