Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act [VIII of 1965]
Section 1–
Sonali Bank
is a creature of Statute namely, PO 26 of 1972, which has made it a juristic
person. It has its own identity, it functions as per the said statute, so it
cannot be said to be an office under the Government.
Managing
Director, Sonali Bank and 2 others vs Md Jahangir Kabir Mal/ah 48 DLR 395.
Sections
2(1) and 6–
Lay–off–Employer’s
financial inability is covered by the expression “other cause beyond his
control” appearing in section 6 and his right to take action thereunder
cannot be fettered with limitation.
Virginia
Tobacco Co. vs Labour Court 45 DLR 233.
Section 2(1)(b)–
The
definition of worker as given in the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act
has not named any employee in its concept. It is a general definition starting
with the person employed in any shop and commercial establishment who is not
employed in any managerial or administrative capacity is a worker. Bank has already
been found to be a commercial establishment and the plaintiff being an
assistant cashier was not doing managerial or administrative job, but he was
doing a clerical work. Therefore the plaintiff can undoubtedly be said to be a
worker within the meaning of worker as defined in the Employment of Labour
(Standing Orders) Act.
Sonali Bank
and another vs Chandon Kumar Nandi 48 DLR 330.
Section 2(d) –
Whether the
plaintiffs are workers as defined in labour laws having no remedy in Civil
Court. Let us now see whether the plaintiffs are workers as defined in the
Labour Laws so that they may be said to have no remedy in the Civil Court. The
case reported in 35 DLR 151 relates to some employee of another Nationalised
Bank, that is, the Sonali Bank. In that case of Criminal Prosecution of a
Branch Manager of the said Bank under the provisions of Shops and Establishment
Act, 1965 the question arose whether such nationalised Banks came under the
purview of the Shops and Establishment Act.
It was
noticed that among other concerns a banking company and a bank were also
included within the definition, and after elaborate discussion a Division Bench
of this Court held that the Bank was a Commercial Establishment. There is no
reason why the Janata Bank being a similarly Nationalised Bank should not also
be tested as a Commercial Establishment as defined in the Shops and
Establishment Act.
It is clear
in the light of this definition that the plaintiffs who were employed to do
clerical work in the commercial establishment like the Janata Bank fall within
the definition of worker. The decision reported in 35 DLR 151 does not appear
to have been placed from the Bar before his Lordship while deciding the case
reported in 39 DLR 167 where it has been held that the employees of the Rupali
Bank, a similarly Nationalised Bank, are not workers under the said Act. For
obvious reasons I respectfully disagree with the Single Bench decision. 39 DLR
167 not followed The plaintiffs are workers. Labour Court is the proper forum
for redress of their grievances. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
the two suits.
Md
Shahabuddin vs Janata Bank 41 DLR 94.
Section 2(m) & 2(s)–
In view of
continuous service rendered by the respondent–employees to the Bank, being so
required, their service should be regularised in the Bank service, not in the
category of permanent employees.
Rupali Bank
Ltd vs Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka 54 DLR 602
Sections 2(m)(s) & 4(2)–
The term
“temporary worker” has a connotation which is different from popular
and dictionary meaning of the term. Having regard to the language employed in
the sub–section of the Act, a worker in order to be treated as permanent worker
need not require appointment on permanent basis. It will be sufficient if he
has satisfactorily completed the period of probation.
Mere
mentioning of the fact that a job is of temporary nature does not render it to
be of temporary nature or necessarily give rise to inference that work is
likely to be finished within limited period. Thus, mere appointment on a
temporary basis is not the sole criteria for holding the work as temporary one.
Managing
Director Rupali Bank vs First Labour Court 46 DLR 143.
Sections 2(t) & 25–
Protection
given to an officer of a trade union during pendency of an application for
registration of such union can be enforced by filing of an application under
section 25 of the Act. Otherwise protection given under section 47 A of the
Ordinance to an officer of a trade union, application for registration of which
is pending, would be frustrated.
Star Alkaid
Jute Mills Ltd vs Chairman, 2nd Labour Court and another 49 DLR 537.
Section 2(V)–
Employees of
nationalised Rupali Bank are not workers within the meaning of section 2(V) of
the Employment of Labour (SO) Act and can, therefore, bring a suit in civil
court against an order by the Bank terminating their service.
Asstt.
General Manager vs N Islam 39 DLR 167.
Section 2(V)–
Worker–definition
of–The employment of employees such as cash staff, godown staff, security staff
and managerial staff of the bank cannot be designated as workers within the
meaning of the definition of workers, because these classes of employees are
not meant for productive purpose but used as mere aid to production.
Deputy
Genaral Manager Rupali Bank Ltd vs Nazrul Islam Patwari 44 DLR406.
Section 2(v)–
The term
“worker”, contemplates not only a person to be employed in the work
for productive purposes in any commercial or industrial establishment, but also
embraces a person who on being employed does any skilled, unskilled, manual,
technical, trade promotional or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the
term of employment be express or implied.
Managing
Director, Rupali Bank Limited vs Md
Nazrul Islam Patwary and others 48 DLR (AD) 62.
Section 2(V)–
The kind of
works done by the Pesh Imam, Muazzins, teachers of School and College and staff
members of Medical Centre and Hospital run by the factory management cannot be
equated with the works done by the workers or workmen in the factory.
Amir Hossain
Bhuiya (Md) vs Harisul Haq Bhuiya and others 52 DLR 267.
Section 2(v)(ii)–
In the
absence of establishing by the Management that the worker discharged duties or
functions of the office of administrative nature or of managerial nature, mere
designation is not sufficient to show that he is not a worker.
Managing
Director, Contiforms Forms Limited and Peasant Trading Cold Storage (Pvt) Ltd
vs Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others 50 DLR 476.
Section 2(V)(ii)(8)–
Mere designation
is not sufficient to indicate whether a person is a ‘worker’ or an ’employer’,
but it is the nature of the work showing the extent of his authority which
determines whether he is a worker or employer.
Dosta
Textile Mills vs SB Nath 40 DLR (AD) 45.
Section 3–
The
Corporation has a right to frame its own Rules concerning the condition of
employment of workers as provided under the Proviso to section 3 of the
Act–Rules not found invalid–Labour Court travelled beyond the pleading of the
party.
Brig Khalequzzaman
vs Sk Shahabuddin 42 DLR 293.
Section 3–
Sonali Bank
may have its Service Regulations but will not take it outside the ambit of the
Employment of Labour (Standing Orders)
Act, 1965.
Managing
Director, Sonali Bank and 2 others vs Md Jahangir Kabir Molla 48 DLR 395.
Section 4(2) –
A service
regulation, even if a statutory one, cannot exclude or supersede the Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. The FDC
may have its own Service Regulations but it cannot be beyond the ambit of
Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. If any provision of the Service
Regulations of the FDC is less favourable to the express provision of, the
Standing Orders Act that provision, is void ab initio.
Bangladesh
Film Development Corporation, represented by the Managing Director vs
Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others 49 DLR 396.
Section 5(2)–
If a worker
desires extension of leave he must apply for it before expiry of the leave.
Chittagong
Textile Mills vs Labour Court 45DLR159.
Sections 6 and 2(1)–
Lay-off
Employer’s financial inability is covered by the expression “other cause
beyond his control” appearing in section 6 and his right to take action
thereunder cannot be fettered with limitation.
Virginia
Tobacco Co. vs Labour Court 45 DLR 233.
Sections 6(1) and 12–
Labour Court
acted without authority in directing the petitioner to start work in the Mill
by getting electric supply. There is no law prohibiting employer from retrenching
worker during pendency of labour dispute.
Sultana Jute
Mills Ltd vs Chairman, Labour Court 42 DLR 340.
Sections 15 & 18(6)–
The Chairman
of the Labour Court acted illegally in not accepting the well–reasoned advice
of the members–In the facts of the case the order of dismissal is modified to
one of termination.
Abdus Sattar
vs Chairman, Labour Court Chittagong and another 48 DLR 525.
Sections 16 & 17–
While
awarding punishment the employer ought to have considered the length of
service and previous record of the employees before issuing orders of
dismissal. Considering their length of service and the circumstances of the
case the order of dismissal of the employees are modified to treat the
dismissal as discharge with compensation as provided in law.
Shaukat Ali
vs Chairman, Labour Court, Khulna and others 44 DLR 410.
Sections 17(3) and 25( d)–
Labour Court
has the power to convert an order of dismissal into one of termination of
service in appropriate circumstances.
Bank of
Credit and Commerce vs Tajul Islam 45 DLR (AD) 61.
Section 17(3)(b)–
Temporary possession
of goods without knowledge or consent of the person entitled to the possession
amounts to misappropriation.
Zeenat
Textile Mills Ltd vs Third Labour Court Dhaka 44 DLR 213.
Section 18–
In a case of
punishment for the worker, Labour Court Cannot re-open the factual merit and
re–assess evidence to disprove findings given by the domestic tribunal.
Adamjee Jute
Mills Ltd vs Third Labour Court 42 DLR 371.
Section 18–
Dismissal–Dismissal
of a worker with retrospective effect is illegal, but not in toto–dismissal is
legal prospectively with effect from the date when the order was issued.
Chittagong
Textile Mills vs Labour Court 45 DLR 159.
Section 18–
Termination
with stigma– From the order of termination it appears that the petitioner has
been branded to be a ‘habitual absentee’ i.e. a stigma has been attached which
calls for opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The petitioner has
not been afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter and no enquiry
has been held. This is an order of dismissal in the garb of termination and, as
such, the same is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and the
petitioner be re–instated in service at once.
Modares Miah
vs The Chairman. 1st Labour Court 44 DLR 165.
Section 18–
Judgement by
domestic tribunal– Extent of Labour Court’s jurisdiction over such judgment–
The finding of the domestic tribunal in the present case is not contrary to
evidence or perverse and, as such, it cannot be interfered with by the Labour
Court. This is not a case of no evidence but a case · of improper assessment of
evidence on record. It is not the function of the Labour Court to make reassessment
of evidence recorded by the Tribunal.
Zeenat
Textile Mills Ltd. vs Chairman, Third Labour Court Dhaka 44 DLR 213.
Section 18–
Domestic
enquiry–Plea for fresh enquiry–Such enquiry was demanded after examination of
witnesses and the order of dismissal on the contention that the enquiry was not
fair. If the employees had any doubt about the fairness of the enquiry they
should have raised it at the initial stage and before the enquiry committee
concluded its proceeding. This having not been done the contention is not
tenable.
Shaukat Ali
vs Chairman, Labour Court, KhuIna and others 44 DLR 410.
Section 18(1)–
Labour Court
is not a Court of appeal, but it can interfere only when the Inquiry Officer or
the Inquiry Committee, 1;1s the case may be, acts unfairly and against the
principles of natural justice.
The Labour
Court can only interfere with the finding of the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry
Committee if it is found that inquiry was held unfairly, with bad faith,
without complying with the principles of natural justice and without following
the procedure laid down in section 18 of the Employment of Labour (Standing
Orders, Act.
Nurul Amin
Chowdhury vs Chairman, Second Labour Court 42 DLR 217.
Section 18(2)–
The
continued suspension of the respondent No. 2 beyond 60 days from 19–8– 1982 is
illegal in view of section 18(2) of the Act.
The total
period of suspension that can be passed is 67 days, 60 days for purposes of
enquiry and only 7 days as a measure of punishment.
The
petitioner–Corporation is not authorised by law to take action against the
respondent No. 2 at stages in pursuance of the Inquiry Report–It has to take
action only once against the delinquent worker–The Corporation cannot continue
the order of suspension ad infinitum though it is entitled to issue a fresh
order of suspension.
Secretary,
BJC others vs Chairman, 2nd Labour Court 41 DLR 265.
Section 18(4)(a)–
The
suspended worker will be entitled to the subsistence allowance under the
proviso to sub–section (2) of section 17.
Secretary
BJC vs Chairman, Second Labour Court 41 DLR 265.
Section 18(5)–
If an
inquiry is held at the back of a delinquent or without notifying the
delinquent, it cannot be found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance
with the provisions of section 18 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders)
Act– Labour Court’s finding is illegal.
Nurul Amin
Chowdhury vs Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka 42 DLR 217.
Section 18(6)–
Non–consideration
of previous records, effect of–Non–consideration of the previous record of the
worker is no ground to strike down the order of his dismissal, but a lesser
punishment may be given and, accordingly, the order is modified to the extent
that the worker’s dismissal be treated as discharge from service.
Adamjee Jute
Mills Ltd vs Chairman, Third Labour Court 42 DLR 371.
Section 18(6)–
It is purely
a matter of discretion of the employer to take into consideration previous
good services of an employee before awarding him punishment.
Serajul
Islam vs Bangladesh 45 DLR (AD) 100.
Section 18(6)–
Enquiry
report of the enquiry officer having not been furnished along with the second
show cause notice to the petitioner and his previous record of service having
not been taken into consideration before awarding the punishment of dismissal
from service, the punishment is illegal.
Mostafa Miah
vs Chairman, First Labour Court. 46 DLR 373.
Section 19–
Permanent
worker–right to terminate his service by one month’s notice and 14 days’ notice
in the case of other employees.
Belal Rahman
vs PJ Industries 39 DLR 239.
Section 19–
Employer can
waive the period of notice and acceptance of resignation and release the worker
before one month.
Belal Rahman
vs PJ Industries 39 DLR 239.
Section 19–
Termination,
validity of– There is nothing to indicate that the Assistant General Manager
exercised any delegated authority or communicated order passed by any superior
officer who was the appointing authority of the employee. The courts below
struck down the order as being without jurisdiction which called for no
interference.
Rupali Bank
Ltd vs Nazrul Islam Patwari 44 DLR 406.
Section 19–
Departmental
proceeding was initiated against the employee but the same was subequently
dropped and a simple order of termination containing no charge or stigma issued
–The order was valid.
Managing
Director, Sonali Bank and 2 others vs Md Jahangir Kabir Molla 48 DLR 395.
Sections 19 & 25–
The
respondent though a worker his civil suit is maintainable as the proviso to
section 25(1) does not provide him any scope for redress as the order of
termination was not passed for trade union activity or for depriving him of
benefits specified under section 19.
Managing
Director, Rupali Bank Limited vs Md Nazrul Islam Patwary and others 48 DLR (AD)
62.
Sections 19 & 25–
When fact of
termination of service has not been brought home by either side the question of
termination benefit does not arise.
Managing
Director United Hosiery Mills vs Second Labour Court 46 DLR 445.
Sections 19 and 25–
The
plaintiff was neither terminated under section 19 of the Act nor was he an
officer of a registered trade union. As such, the doors of the Labour Court
were not open to him to vindicate his grievance under section 25 of the Act
against his termination. The relief sought for in the suit could not be prayed
before the Labour Court.
Uttara Bank
Ltd vs Syed Abidur Reza and ors 56 DLR 461.
Sections 19 and 25(1)(d)–
“Termination”
is a recognised method of dispensing with the services of a worker by an
employer after fulfilling certain conditions, such as, by providing termination
benefits– The wide powers with which the Labour Court is vested under section
25(l)(d) also includes the power to order termination with benefits.
Haider Ali
Mollah vs Chairmam, Second Labour Court 42 DLR 200.
Sections 19 and 25(1)(d)–
Discretion
to pass an order under section 25 (l)(d) rests with the Labour Court–Writ Court
cannot substitute its own discretion or its concept of propriety for the
discretion .or the concept of propriety of the Labour Court–It can only examine
the legality or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.
Haider Ali
Mollah vs Chairman, Second Labour Court 42 DLR 200.
Section 19(1)–
From the
definition of ‘wages’ in the Act of 1936 and in the Act of 1965 it is quite
clear that termination benefit as provided in section 19 of the Act of 1965 is
also ‘wages’.
Managing
Director, Contiforms Forms Limited and PeasantTrading Cold Storage (Pvt) Ltd vs
Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others 50 DLR 476.
Section 19(1) & 25(d)–
Termination
of worker–Termination, when to take effectLabour Court has given no reasons
for treating the date of its judgement as the date of termination of service of
the worker. It is not correct to say that the language of section 25( d) of the
Act and the facts and circumstances of the case warrant treating the date of
judgement of the Labour Court as the date of termination of his service. Labour
Court’s order treating the date of its judgement as the date of termination is
without lawful authority.
Chittagong
Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Chairman, Labour Court Chittagong and another 43 DLR
471.
Section 25–
An aggrieved
individual worker including a dismissed or discharged or retrenched or laid–off
or otherwise removed person shall have to submit his grievance to his employer
within 15 days of the occurrence of the cause of such action.
Karim Jute
Mill vs Chairman, Second Labour Court 42 DLR 255.
Section 25–
The worker
is to send his grievance notice by registered post within 15 days of the
occurrence.
Abul Kalam
vs Chairman 38 DLR 399.
Section 25–
Whether
retirement from service is a grievance coming within the purview of section 25
of the Act–Since the retirement, right or wrong, is not covered under any of
the provisions of the Act as grievance; the workers so retired cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
Messrs
Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd vs The Chairman, Third Labour Court 42 DLR 275.
Section 25–
In view of
the provisions of section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, section 14 of the said
Act is applicable to a special law like the Employment of Labour (Standing
Orders) Act.
Secretary,
BJC & others vs Chairman, Second Labour Court. 41 DLR 265.
Section 25–
Suspension–Grievance
notice –Section 25 of the Act does not contemplate filing of grievance notice
after 15 days of the order of suspension of an employee on the plea that cause
of action in case of suspension is recurring one.
GM, Kohinoor
Spinning Mills Ltd vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court, Dhaka 44 DLR 344.
Section 25–
Additional
written statement – Limitation– Labour Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction
by relying upon the additional written statement filed beyond the period of
limitation giving rise to new cause of action.
GM, Kohinoor
Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court, Dhaka 44 DLR 344.
Section 25–
When Labour
Court does not find any procedural defect in the domestic tribunal’s enquiry
into a case, Labour Court has no authority to assume its jurisdiction to set
aside the tribunal’s conclusion. Labour Court cannot act as a court of appeal
and reassess the evidence so as to arrive at finding of its own.
GM, Kohinoor
Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court, Dhaka 44 DLR 344 .
Section 25–
Termination
of bank employee –Civil court jurisdiction– There is no specific provision
either in the President’s Order in the Bank (Employees) Service Regulation
against termination of employment or imposition of penalty before any court.
There is therefore no question of inconsistency of any provision of the
Regulation with section 25 of the Standing Orders Act as to forum for judicial
redress. This section must be read to have been made applicable in respect of
any liability created under the service regulations. The Courts below therefore
fell into an error of law in not holding that the suits were impliedly barred
and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Pubali Bank
Limited vs Mansur Ali Akanda and others 44 DLR
Section 25–
Since the
worker did not send his grievance petition to the employer within 15 days of
his alleged removal, he cannot come before the Labour Court also under section
25 of the Act.
NETC vs
Labour Court 45 DLR 357.
Section 25–
Where the
Labour Court finds that an order of dismissal from service cannot be maintained
on facts and there is no procedural defect in holding enquiry by the domestic
tribunal, it can convert the order of dismissal to one of termination. Such
order cannot be declared as made without jurisdiction merely on the ground of
stigma unless the proceeding of the Domestic Tribunal is vitiated by procedural
defect.
Anil Krishna
Mondal vs Chairman 45 DLR 367.
Section 25–
Labour Court
has been set up to do justice to the worker–complainants and not to throw out
the cases filed by the workers on technical grounds. The Labour Court having
found the order of dismissal of the petitioner not tenable in law had no option
but to do justice to the petitioner.
Azizul Huq
(Md) vs Chairman Labour Court Khulna and others 48 DLR 527.
Section 25–
For not
availing of the forum as provided in section 25 of the Act of 1965 a worker is not
precluded ‘from realising the termination benefits by filing an application
under section 15(2) of the Act of 1936.
Managing
Director, Contiforms Forms Limited and Peasant Trading Cold Storage(Pvt) Ltd vs
Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others 50 DLR 476.
Section 2–
The objects
and purpose of the Payment of Wages Act and the objects and purpose of the
Employment of Labour (SO) Act and Industrial Relations Ordinance are not in
pari materia. Their fundamentals are different in nature. A person cannot seek
relief under the Payment of Wages Act for a claim arising out of the Standing
Orders Act as that will cause anomaly. Once it is allowed the aggrieved persons
mostly will come under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act to avail of a
larger period of limitation.
Shaw Wallace
vs Bangladesh Limited Tofazzal Hossain son of late Abdul Kader and others 50
DLR 22.
Section 2–
Since the
overriding responsibility of the Labour Court is to decide the complaint case
after giving notice and hearing to the parties it had no option but to set
aside the order of rejection for non–appearance of the complainant who was able
to satisfy the La\lpur Court as to the cause of his non–appearance. Deciding a
case means deciding it on merit and not by passing a default order.
Crescent
Jute Mills Company Ltd vs Chairman, Labour Court and anr 49 DLR 201.
Section 2–
In the
absence of compliance with the statutory requirements under section 25 of the
Act of 1965 no application made under section 34 of the Ordinance can be
converted to one under the Act and as such there is no scope for remitting the
case to the Court below.
Sabita Dutta
vs Manager, Cinema Palace, Chittagong and another 51 DLR (AD) 215.
Section 2–
The
petitioner’s case against termination of his service having remained pending
for disposal, the order directing him to vacate his residential accommodation
is without lawful authority.
Abdur Rahim
(Md) vs Bangladesh Sarak Paribahan Corporation 51 DLR 339.
Section 2–
The
non–consideration by the petitioner that the respondents were its permanent
workers and entitled to get benefits of as such workers is a continuous wrong
and as such a fresh limitation began to run at every time when the petitioner
continued with the wrong.
Rupali Bank
Ltd vs Chairman 2nd Labour Court Dhaka &another 52 DLR 603.
Sections 25 & 19–
When fact of
termination of service has not been brought home by either side the question of
termination benefit does not arise.
MD, United
Hosiery Mills vs Second Labour Court 46 DLR
445.
Sections 25 and 26–
Jurisdiction
of the Labour Court under section 26 is not attracted unless an accused refuses
or fails to comply with an order passed under section 25. The petitioner did
not refuse or fail to comply with the order under section 25.
Sekander
Mian vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court 41 DLR 203.
Sections 25 & 26–
Unless the amounts of claim are ascertained
which can only be done on an application under section 34 of the Industrial
Relations Ordinance,.1969, the complainants can not resort to criminal
proceedings for alleged noncompliance.
Abdul Hamid
Khan vs Md Abul Kashem 55 DLR 231.
Sections 25 and 27–
Labour Court
cannot act as an appellate Court in deciding cases by giving a finding of its
own on re–assessment of evidence. In the present cases the Labour Court acted
beyond jurisdiction in re–assessing the evidence examined by a domestic enquiry
committee and hence it is without lawful autority.
In view of
the fact that the domestic enquiry was held in accordance with the provisions
of the Act, the decision of the Labour Court that the charges against the
delinquent employees have not been established is without lawful authority.
Dhaka Dyeing
& Manufacturing Company Ltd vs Chairman, Second Labour Court Dhaka 42
DLR 278.
Section 25(1)–
The petition
filed by hand could not be considered to be a grievance petition. At best, the
same could be considered as an appeal or a petition for review of the order of
dismissal passed by the respondent No. l but by no means a grievance petition
as meant by section 25 of the Employment Of Labour (Standing Orders) Act.
Sultan Ahmed
vs. Chairman, Divisional Labour Court, and others 49 DLR 215.
Section 25(1)(a)–
It is well
settled that even in a domestic inquiry witnesses cannot be examined behind the
back of the worker without informing him regarding the place, date and time for
examination of witnesses and thereby giving him an opportunity to cross–examine
them if he so wants.
Eastern
Phamaceuticals Ltd vs Labour Court 43 DLR 223.
Section 25(1)(a)–
Grievance
procedure– In a case of admitted service of grievance petition by the worker
within the specified time, the formality of sending the same by registered post
should not be interpreted in a way detrimental to the interest of the worker.
Bangladesh
Road Transport Corporation vs Md Esken Mallick and another 56 DLR (AD) 125.
Section 25(1)(b)–
Submission
of grievance petition within 15 days must be fulfilled first and then complaint
petition to the Labour Court lies.
Karim Jute
Mills vs Chairman, Second Labour Court 42 DLR 255.
Section 25(1)(b)–
Deposit of
tax and fine payable by the employee did not absolve him of the liability of
disciplinary action for misconduct, although the employer did not incur any
monetary loss. Labour Court acted without lawful authority in holding that the
employee was punished twice for the same offence by dismissing him from service
for misconduct.
BRTC vs
Chairman, First Labour Court 46 DLR 483.
Section 25(1)(b)–
This Court
can as well for doing complete justice in any cause treat the application under
section 25(1)(b) as an application under the Payment of Wages Act for
realisation of the benefits consequent upon retirement of the deceased worker.
BWDB and
others vs Chairman, Divisional Labour Court, Khulna and others 55 DLR (AD) 5.
Section 25(1)(b)–
Any employer
is always free to take recourse to a simple order of termination in order to
avoid the complex disciplinary action provided the intended action is not taken
with a view to victimising the worker for trade union activities.
Karnaphuli
Fertiliser Co Ltd vs Chairman, First Labour Court, and another 56 DLR 502
Section 25(1)(b)–
The
petitioner firstly submitted to the jurisdiction of Labour Court, Rajshahi and
filed written statement to contest the complaint case and then raised the
question of jurisdiction by filing an application which was ultimately decided
in favour of the respondent No. 2 by order dated 31–1–1998. That order having
not been challenged the petitioners questioned the jurisdiction in a proceeding
under Article 102 of the Constitution as they filed written statement to
contest the case.
Chairman,
Uttara Management Ltd vs Labour Court, Rajshahi 56 DLR 627.
Section 25(1)(d)–
Discretion
to pass an order under section 25(l)(d) rests with the Labour Court–Writ Court
cannot substitute its own discretion or its concept of propriety of the
discretion or the concept of propriety of the Labour Court–It can only examine
the legality or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the Labour Court.
Haider Ali
Mollah vs Chairman, Second Labour Court 42 DLR 200.
Section 25(1)(d)–
Whether a
Labour Court is empowered to re–instate a dismissed workerWhether a Labour
Court which has sufficient materials to draw a conclusion that it would be
inappropriate to make an order for re–instatement can pass an order of
termination of service instead, though the Labour Court had found that the
order of dismissal was illegal.
Shahjahan
Ali vs Chairman, Labour Court 40 DLR 132.
Section 25(1)(d)–
Labour Court
did not act illegally or in excess of its authority in converting the order of
dismissal into an order of temination simpliciter.
Nurul Islam
(Md) vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court, and another 46 DLR 661.
Section 25(1)(d)–
The power of
the Labour Court to pass such orders as may appear to it to be just and proper
is limited by the general provision that a worker dismissed lawfully cannot be
imposed on the employer on compassionate ground or on the ground of severity of
penalty.
Maqbular
Rahman Jute Mills Limited vs Chairman Labour Court and another 48 DLR 566.
Sections 25(d) & 19(1)–
Termination
of worker–Termination when to take effectLabour Court has given no reasons for
treating the date of its judgement as the date of termination of service of the
worker. It is not correct to say that the language of section 25( d) of the Act
and the facts and circumstances of the case warrant treating the date of
judgement of the Labour Court as the date of termination of his service. Labour
Court’s order treating the date of its judgement as the date of termination is
without lawful authority.
Chittagong
Textile Mills Ltd vs The Chairman, Labour Court Chittagong and another 43 DLR
471.
Section 26–
After a
general order conferring termination benefits upon a workman is passed by a
Labour Court the court has no jurisdiction to determine the quantum of the
benefits under section 26.
We do not
express any opinion as to the remedy of respondent No. 2 with regard to his
entitlement to the allegedly balanced sum of Taka 546571. He may take recourse
to such remedies as he may be advised, but we are definitely of the opinion
that after the Labour Court passes general order conferring termination
benefits upon a workman, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to determine the
quantum under section 26 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act,
1965.
Labour Court
can punish an offender only for refusal or failure to comply with a definite
order as the earlier order was for an unascertained sum the Court’s
jurisdiction under section 26 could not be invoked particularly as there was
neither any refusal nor failure to comply with the order of the Labour Court.
The Labour
Court can punish an offender only for refusal or . failure to comply with a
definite order and not for refusal or failure to comply with an indefinite
order. If the earlier judgment was for an ascertained sum, then the respondent
No. 2 could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 26,
but for an unascertained sum the Labour Court simply has no jurisdiction to
proceed against the accused–petitioner, particularly when there is neither any
refusal nor any failure to comply with the order of the Labour Court.
Sekander
Miah vs Chairman, 1st Labour Court 41 DLR 203.
Section 26–
Labour Court
was not constituted under Code of Criminal Procedure– There is no provision for
appeal or revision against any order passed under section 26 of the Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act.
Jagodish
Chandra Datta vs MH Azad 41 DLR 257.