Appellate Division Cases
(Civil)
PARTIES
Trading Corporation of Bangladesh TCB Bhaban, 1, Kawaran Bazar, Dhaka
………………………….Appellant
Vs
Md. Abdul Halim Bhuiyan & others (31) ………………………………Respond ents
JUDGES
Syed J.R.Mudassir Husain C J
M. M. Ruhul Amin J
Amirui Kabir Chowdhury J
Date of Judgment
27™ April 2006
Probidhan 50 of Trading Corporation of Bangladesh
The Bangladesh Constitution Articles 28-31.
The employees of the TCB have been released from their services on the ground that their services were no longer required for the organization this was a policy decision of the Government taken on the basis of recommendation (3)
The Board of Directors of the TCB in discharging its functions, shall act on commercial considerations with due regard to the interest of the nation and the public generally and be guided by such general or special instructions as may be given to it by the Government from time to time. He further submits that at the relevant time the post of secretary of the TCB was vacant and the Deputy Secretary (Administration) was allowed to hold the current charge of the post of Secretary (7)
So the Government’s decision to reduce the manpower was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the TCB. Therefore, the writ petitioners were discharged from the their service by the Board of Directors of TCB, of Course on the basis of the decision taken by the Government…… (7)
TCB was initially established in 1972 for import of essential commodities and also for export of certain commodities and at present no such function is performed by TCB and in fact it had no business now. Therefore, considering the whole situation the decision to reduce manpower was taken by the authority on the basis of recommendation of a High powered committee headed by an Additional Secretary to the Government and the decision of the Government in this regard was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the T. C. B ‘. (9)
ADVOCATES
Dr. A. K. M. AH, Advocate, instructed by Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record For the Appellant (in all the cases).T. H. Khan, Senior Advocate, instructed by A. S. M. Khalequzzciman, Advocate-on-Record For Respondent No. 1 Not represented Respondent Nos. 2-5 ( in all the cases)
JUDGMENT
1. M. M. Ruhul Amin ,J :- These appeals by leave arc directed against the judgment and order dated 12.04.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the high Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 4919, 4920, 4921, 4922, 4923, 4924, 4925, 4926. 5097, 5260, 8034, 8035, 8036, 8037, 8038. 8039, 8040, 8041, 8042, 8043, 8292 of 2002 & 1164, 1165. 1166. 1167, 1168, 1169. 1170, 2731, 2732, 2733, of 2003 making the Rules absolute.
2. Short facts are that the writ petitioners were appointed in various posts of the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh ( Shortly the T. C. 13) . By order under Memo No. BAM/ OBA-3/PROSHA-2(JOOPU)/ 02/380 dated 18.09.2002 of the Ministry of Commerce, Government of Bangladesh issued under the signature of the writ respondent No. 4 and communicated to the writ petitioners on 19.09.2002 (Anncxure-A) informed them that they have discharged from their employment with T C B effective from various dates mentioned in the impugned memo dated 19.09.2002. The writ petitioners challenged the aforesaid i memo stating, inter alia, that the orders I were violative of their vested right enshrined in the Service Rules of the TCB i and also violative of the fundamental rights j
guaranteed to them under Articles 28-31 of the Constitution and also the impugned orders being issued in disregard of the Hmployment of Labour (Standing Order ) Act 1965 the orders were liable to be struck down.
3. The rules were opposed by TCB-the petitioner and two other respondents by filing affidavits-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that 306 employees of the TCB have been released from their services on the ground that their services were no longer required for the organization and that the Government reduced the manpower of TCB from 541 to 235 and thus to release 306 employees and this was a policy decision of the Government taken on the basis of recommendation of a committee headed by an Additional Secretary to the Government who thoroughly examined the service records of the employees of TCB and made the recommendation accordingly on the basis of which impugned orders were passed. It was further stated that out of 306 employees 245 had already taken their retirement benefits.
4. The High Court Division upon hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, made the Rules absolute declaring the aforesaid memo dated 18.09.2002 communicated to the writ petitioners on 19.09.2002 discharging them from service as illegal and without lawful authority.
5. Leave was granted to consider the submission that the TCB felt constrained to issue the orders of discharge retiring the writ petitioners from service considering the better interest of the nation and for better public interest and on the basis of the recommendation made by a high powered committee. The impugned orders have been made and the actions have been taken strictly according to law and the further submission
that there being excess of staff in TCB and the writ petitioners services being considered unnecessary, the impugned orders have been passed with full financial benefits to them and as such the same does not suffer from any error.
6. We have heard Dr. A. K. M. Ah, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. M. Khan, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in all the appeals and perused the judgment of the High Court Division and other connected papers.
7. Dr. Ali submits that under Order 6(2) of the Trading Corporation of Bangladesh Order, 1972 (shortly TCB Order 1972) the Board of Directors of the TCB in discharging its functions, shall act on commercial considerations with due regard to the interest of the nation and the public generally and be guided by such general or special instructions as may be given to it by the Government from time to time. He further submits that at the relevant time the post of secretary of the TCB was vacant and the Deputy Secretary (Administration) was allowed to hold the current charge of the post of Secretary, T. C. B. and filed memo dated 07.08.1997 of T.C. B in support of his submission. Dr. Ali also produced the relevant file before us to show that Annexure-A was placed by the Secretary, T. C. B before Director (Finance) who approved the same and placed the same before the Chairman of TCB who also approved the same regarding reduction of manpower and discharge of the writ petitioners and others from service. He further submits that at the relevant time that there was only one Director, in the TCB in addition to the Chairman. So the Government’s decision to reduce the manpower was duly approved by the Board of Directors of the TCB. Therefore, the writ petitioners were discharged from the their service by the Board of Directors of TCB, of Course on the basis of the decision taken by the Government. He further submits thus it is clear that the Provisions of TCB Orders, 1972, were duly complied with. 8. Mr. Khan the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 in all the appeals submits that TCB is a statutory corporation established under Trading Corporation of Bangladesh Order 1972 and the terms and conditions of service of the employees of TCB are regulated by the Rules and regulations framed there under. But in the instant cases, they were not discharged following the rules and regulations and the terms and condition of service of TCB.
9. In reply Dr. Ali submits that under Probidhan 50 of Trading Corporation of Bangladesh “BANGLA” the authority without assisting any reason can retire an employee after giving three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof but the impugned orders they were given much more benefits considering their social condition etc. He further submits that TCB was initially established in 1972 for import of essential commodities and also for export of certain commodities and at present no such function is performed by TCB and in fact it had no business now. Therefore, considering the whole situation the decision to reduce manpower was taken by the authority on the basis of recommendation of a High powered committee headed by an Additional Secretary to the Government and the decision of the Government in this regard was duly
approved by the Board of Directors of the T. C. B.
10. In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the writ petitioners were not discharged on the basis of Government decision alone rather Government’s decision was duly approved by Board of Directors of TCB and hence we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. The High Court Division, therefore, was notjustified in making the Rules absolute. All the appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.
Source: III ADC (2006) 452