Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

 

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.

Employment Of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

 

Employment
Of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 (Viii Of 1965)

 

Section—2(b)

Mere
designation is not sufficient to indicate where a person is a “worker” or an
‘employer, but it is the nature of the work showing extent of his authority
which determines whether he is a worker or employer.

M/s. Pioneer
Garments Limited represented by its Managing Director Vs Md. Abul Kalam Azad
and ano., 2O BLD (AD) 62.

Ref: Senior
Manager, MIs. Dosta Textile Mills. Ltd. vs. Sudhansu Bikash Nath, 40 DLR (AD)
45—relied.

 

Sections—18,
19 and 25

The
Provision for termination simplicatar has been embodied in Section 19 only. A
termination order which gives all the termination benefits is to be deemed to
have been passed under Section 19 of the Act, although it was passed in
pursuance of a proceeding against an employee.

When
an employee is given all the benefits of termination under Section 19 of the
Act and the termination is without any Stigma, he cannot approach the Labour
Court under Section 25.

The
labour Court is only to see whether the Domestic Tribunal acted in accordance
with the requirements of Section 18 of the Act and not to reassess the evidence
before the Domestic Tribunal unless such assessment is capricious and
whimsical.

The Managing
Director, Bangladesh Consumers’ Supplies Company Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, 1st
Labour Court, Dhaka and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 666 .

Ref:
21 DLR. 218 and 27 DLR. 65.

 

Employment Of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

 

Employment
Of Labour (Standing Orders) Act 1965 (Viii Of 1965)

 

Section—2(1)(b)

Worker

An
Assistant Cashier of Sonali Bank is a worker within the meaning of ‘worker as
defined in the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 and as such his
remedy against any grievance in respect of his service lies before the Labour
Court. The civil coup has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.

Sonali Bank
and another Vs. Chandon Kumar Nandi, 15 BLD (HCD) 249.

 

Section—2
(1) (b)

A
godown keeper of Sonali Bank is a ‘worker within the meaning of ‘worker as
defined in the Act and as such his remedy against termination of his service
lies before the Labour Court. Since specific remedy i available to the
plaintiff under the provision of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders)
Act, 1965, the suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not
maintainable.

Managing
Director, Sonali Bank and others Vs. Md. Jahangir Kabir Molla and another, 15
BLD (HCD) 575.

 

Sections—2(m)
and 2(s)

Appointment
of employees on temporary basis cannot be termed as probationers inasmuch as
the appointments are not given against any permanent or sanctioned post. In the
instant case, although the number of temporary posts varied depending on the
Bank’s requirements, in view of the continuous service rendered by the employees
to the Bank, their service should be regularised in the category of temporary
employees, and they are entitled to be considered for absorption in permanent
posts on preferential basis.

Rupali Bank
lid v. The Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka, 22 BLD (HCD) 143.

 

Sections—2(s)
and (m) and 19(3)

Temporary
Worker and Permanent Worker

Section
2(s) of the Act provides that a temporary worker” is a worker who has been
‘engaged for work which is essentially temporary in nature and is likely to be
finished within a limited period while Section 2(m) of the Act defines a
“permanent worker’ as a worker who has been engaged on a permanent basis or who
has satisfactorily completed the period of his probation in the commercial or
industrial establishment. On a construction of Sections 2(s) and 2(m) read with
Section 4(1) of the Act the petitioner is held to be a temporary worker.

Section
19(3) of the Act empowers the employer to terminate the employment of a
temporary worker due to completion or cessation of the work. In such a case,
the employer is under no obligation to give the employee  any notice for termination of his job.

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

 

Sections—2
(V) and 17(1)

Bangladesh
Power Development Board (Employees) Service Rules, 1982, Rule—23(6)

The
petitioner was an employee of the Bangladesh Power Development Board as a
Steno-Typist and he was dismissed from service for alleged misconduct.
Consequently, he comes under the definition of “worker” as defined in the
Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act and as such section 17(1) of the
said Act is applicable to him, although he was not a “worker” as defined in
Rule(12) of the Bangladesh Power Development Board (Employee) Service Rules,
1982. As the post of the petitioner comes in the category of “worker” as
defined in the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. 1965 and the
impugned order of dismissal was passed under the said Act by initiating a
disciplinary proceeding against him under section 18 of the Act, the proper
forum for the petitioner to seek redress lay before the Labour Court and not
before the High Court Division under its writ jurisdiction.

Md. Badsha
Mia Vs. Bangladesh, 16 BLD (HCD) 591

Ref:
34 DLR(AD)37; 31 DLR 301; A.I.R. 1973(SC) 365—Cited.

 

Section—2(V)

Definition
of ‘Worker”

The
term ‘worker’ as defined in the Section 2(v) of the Act contemplates not only a
person to be employed in the work of a commercial or industrial establishment
for productive purposes but also it includes 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.
But a person who is employed in a managerial, administrative or supervisory
capacity and does perform specified functions is not a worker.

The Managing
Director, Rupali Bank Limited Vs. Md. Nazrul Islam Patwary and others, 15 BLD (AD)
169.

 

Section—16

The
employer has rightly connected the nature of illness of the worker, the
duration and relationship of the illness with the nature of job performed by
him and has rightly come to a conclusion as to his further usefulness in
service bonafide on records and such use of power by the employer cannot be hedged
with interpretive conditions which make the exercise of power impossible or
much too difficult.

The
words ‘such other reasons not amounting to misconduct’ occurring in section 16
of the Act should be interpreted ejusdem generis with the words ‘physical or
mental incapacity’.

M/s. Karim
Jute Mills Ltd. Vs Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dhaka and another, 17 BLD (AD)
209.

 

Section—18

Apart
from the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, a domestic tribunal is not bound
by any procedural law or the law of evidence.

Bangladesh
Paper Mills Ltd Vs. Chairman, Third Labour Court and another, 14 BLD (AD) 97.

 

Sections—18(1)
and 25

Under
Section 25 of the Act the Labour Court is to see whether the requirements of
Section 18(1) thereof have been duly complied with. Section 18(1) requires that
the allegations against the delinquent worker must be recorded in writing and
he must be given at least 3 days’ time to furnish his explanation and he is
given a personal hearing, if prayed for, and the employer has approved the
order of dismissal. But the Labour Court is not a Court of appeal over the
findings of the domestic tribunal. If the necessary procedures are followed and
the principle of natural justice is complied with, there is no occasion for
interference to the findings of the Enquiry Committee. The Labour Court can
interfere only when it is found that the enquiry was held unfairly, with bad
faith, without applying the rules of natural justice and without following the
procedures laid down in Section 18(i) of Act.

When
the Labour Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act
arrived at a finding that the order of dismissal is not based on any evidence
on record and on such finding set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for
re-instating the delinquents to their respective posts, the High Court Division
refused to interfere with the discretion of the Labour Court and to convert the
order of re-instatement to an order of termination simpliciter, there being
nothing on record to hold that an incongenial relationship existed between the
Parties.

The
Executive Director, Adamjee Jute Mills Limited Vs The Chairman, 3rd Labour
Court, Dhaka and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 211.

Ref:
33 DLR 1; 22 DLR 577; (1976)3 S.C. Cases 69, A.I.R. 1963 (SC) 1914; 32 DLR (AD)
46; A.I.R. 1969(SC)83; 32 DLR (AD) 68; 29 DLR (SC) 280, 31 DLR (AD)33; A.I.R.
1969(SC)983; A.I.R. 1964 (SC)719; A.I.R. 1963(SC) 375; A.I.R. 1964(SC)7O8— Cited.

 

Section—19

The
Labour Court is power to convert order of dismissal to one of termination with
all benefits under Section 19 of the Act is derived from the general principle
that a dismissed worker should not be foisted upon his employer except when the
dismissal order is illegal.

Chittagong
Urea Fertilizer. Ltd Vs. The Chairman, Labour Court, Chittagong & another,
14 BLD (AD) 153.

 

Section—24

Section
24 of the Act provides that a worker occupying a residential accommodation
provided by his employer who has been retrenched, discharged, dismissed or
whose services has been terminated, shall vacate such residential accommodation
within a period of 15 days from the date of his retirement, discharge,
dismissal or termination of his service, as the case may be unless a case in
respect of such retirement, discharge, dismissal or termination of service is pending
before any Court.

In
the instant case the petitioner has been asked to vacate the residential
accommodation by the impugned order when the complaint case was pending before
the Labour Court challenging the termination of his service. In view of the provision
of law the High Court Division held that pendency of complaint case before the
Labour Court the order of vacating the premises is illegal and without lawful
authority.

Md. Abdur
Rahim Vs Bangladesh Sarak Poribahan Corporation, 20 BLD (HCD) 256.

 

Section—25

Payment of
Wages Act, 1936, Section—15(2)

On
reading of the provisions of the two Acts the High Court Division held that for
not availing of the forum as provide in section 25 of the Act of 1965, a worker
is not precluded from realizing the termination benefits by filing an
application under section 15(2) of the Act of 1936.

Managing Director, Contiform Forms Ltd. Vs.
The Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and ors., 18 BLD (HCD) 531.

 

Section—25 Proviso

Proviso
to section 25 of the Act provides that no complaint shall lie against the order
of termination of a worker if the sam was not made for his trade union
activities. There is nothing in the proviso that termination should be of an
officer of the trade union and not any member. In the instant case, respondent
No. 2 by oral and documentary evidence substantiated his claim that his service
was terminated for his trade union activities.

MIs A R
Howlader Jute Mills Ltd. Vs The Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka and others,
21 BLD (HCD)  6.

 

Section—25(d)

Under
Section 25(d) of the Act, a Labour Court is competent to pass “such order as it
may deem just, and proper and require reinstatement of the complainant in
appropriate cases.”

Chittagong
Urea Fertilizer Ltd Vs. The Chairman, Labour Court, Chittagong& another, 14
BLD (AD) 153.

 

Section—25(1)(a)

Section
25(1)(a) of the Act provides that the worker concerned shall submit his
grievance to his employer in writing, by registered post within fifteen (15)
days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance and the employer shall
within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such grievance, enquire into the matter,
give the worker concerned an opportunity of being heard and communicate his
decision, in writing, to the said worker.

In
the instant case the grievance petition were filed long after the expiry of
fifteen (15) days and hence the management did not act illegally by not
entertaining them. The finding of the Labour Court is without any lawful
authority.

Karnaphuli
Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Vs The Chairman, First Labour Court, Katalganj, Chittagong,
21 BLD (HCD) 319.

Ref:
42BLD258; 38DLR399—cited.

 

Section—25(1)

Grievance
Procedure

As
proviso to section 25(1) of the Act does not provide the aggrieved security
guard of the Bank any scope for lodging any complaint seeking any redress
thereunder, as the order of his termination of employment though made under
Section 19 of the Act, was not passed for his trade union activities and it did
not deprive him of the benefits specified in Section 19 of the Act, Section 25
of the Act does not stand as a bar to his civil suit against the order of
termination simpliciter

The Managing
Director, Rupali Bank Limited Vs. Md. Nazrul Islam Patwary and others, 15 BLD (AD)
169.

 

Section—25(1)(b)
‘Proviso’

Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, ‘Proviso’

It
provides that no complaint shall lie against an order of termination of
employment of a worker under section 19, unless the service of the worker
concerned is alleged to have been terminated for his trade union activities or
unless the worker concerned has been deprived of the termination benefits. A
labourer could not make any complaint against the order of his termination
before the Labour Court unless his case falls within the exceptions mentioned in
the said proviso, that is to say, he was not an officer of a Registered Trade
Union and his employment was not terminated for his trade union activities nor
was he deprived of the termination benefits. The plaintiffs suit for a
declaration that the order of termination is illegal, void etc. could not be
maintainable before the Labour Court and under such circumstances, the Civil
Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted.

General
Manager, Sonali Bank and an. other Vs Md. Abu Khayer and others., 17 BLD (AD)
183.

Ref:
Managing Director, Rupali Bank Ltd. and ors. Vs. Tafazzal Hossain and ors,
44DLR(AD)260—Distinguished.

 

EMPLOYMENT OF LABOUR (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1965

 

EMPLOYMENT OF LABOUR (STANDING ORDERS)
ACT, 1965 (VII of 1965)

 

Section—2(g)

Meaning of dismissal
— Termination of service of a worker by the employer for misconduct.

The two expressions namely, ‘dismissed on the ground of
misconduct’ and ‘termination of set-vice on the ground of misconduct’ have the
same connotation. The word ‘dismissal’ in the ordinary meaning as found in the
Concise Ox ford Dictionary (Re-printed in I)S4) connotes dishonorably removed
or sent away from service or office while the expression ‘terminable on the
ground of misconduct’ carries the same meaning and Warrna.

Abdul Jail Vs. Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation and others;
11BLD (HCD)35

Section — 2(V)

Worker—The Dacca
Improvement Trust (D.I.T.) is not a commercial or industrial establishment and
its employees are not workers within the meaning of section 2(V) of Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 — Such employees cannot enforce the
provisions of section 18 of that Act relating to subsistence allowance pending
inquiry into misconduct in a proceeding under section 34 of the Industrial
Relations Ordinance, 1969 — The terms and conditions of such employees are
regulated by the Town Improvement Act and Rules frarped thereunder.

Chairman, DI. T. and another Vs Chairman, ‘2nd Labour Court and
another, IBLD(AD)462

Section—2(V)

‘Worker’—Definition of—Mere
designation is not sufficient to indicate whether a person is a ‘worker’ or an
‘employer’ but it is the nature of the works showing the extent of his
authority, which determines whether he is a worker or employee—Mere supervisory
capacity will not bring him to the category of a worker.

Senior Manager, Messrs
Dust Textile Mills Ltd. and another Vs. Sudhaiisu Bikash Nath; 8BLD(AD)66

When Writ lies against the decision of Labour Court—Where it
is found irorn evidence on record that the Labour Court has committed an error
in law, then the High Court Division in its writ jurisdiction can interfere
with the decision of the Labour Court.

The chittagoing Textile
Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, Labour ‘Court, chittagong and anot he,
I2BLD(HCD)519

Ref: 31 DLR(AD)l 19: 16 DLR 49: A.I.R. 1966(SC) 951 —Cited.Sections—5(3)

Worker— Absence without
leave
— Absence without leave for more than ten days after expiry of the
leave initially granted or extended — Worker is guilty of misconduct — employer
may terminate the service by giving notice to worker to show cause why his lien
should not be terminated or he can be proceeded against for misconduct.

Works Manager G.E.C. Manufacturing of Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Chairman,
Labour Court, chittagong and another, IBLD (HCD)484

Ref: 3 1 DLR(AD) 119 — Cited.

Sections—5(3) and
17(3)(d)

Worker — Loss of lien
to appointment
— Worker to be kept on the badli list’ only if there be a
badli list’-—The law does not warrant the maintenance of a ‘badli list’ as a
matter of compulsion.

The Manager, MC Gregor and Balfour (Bangladesh) Limited, Dacca Vs.
Chairman, First Labour Court, Dacca and others; 3BLD (AD)8

Section—6( 1)

Stoppage of work and
lay off
—Question of legality of Labour Court’s direction to allow workers
to resume their normal work — Stoppage of power supply is a valid ground of
stoppage of work — Labour Court acted without lawful authority in directing the
petitioner to start work in the Mill by getting electric supply after payment
of arrear electric hills when workers were retrenched subsequently — There is
no law prohibiting the employer from retrenching his workers during the
pendency of the labour dispute — Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXII of
l%9): S. 34.

Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. chairman, Labour court, Chittagong and
others; IOBLD (HCD)211

Ref: 21 tCal)l32 — Cited. DLR(SC)39; AIR. 1963

Section—12

Retrenching his workers—There
is no law prohibiting the employer from retrenching his workers during the
pendency of the labour dispute — The employer may retrench his workers if the
conditions laid down in section 12 of the Act are fulfilled.

Sultana Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, Chittagong and
others; 10BLD (HCD) 211

Section—1 7(2)

Dismissal—extenuating
circumstances — The management while dismissing the delinquent did not take
into account the extenuating circumstances that he was the first offender
during his service for over 10 years — That being so, the delinquent respondent
shall be deemed to have been discharged under section 17(2) of the Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act. 1965.

Manager, Zeal Bangla Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman, First Labour Court
and another; 2BLD (HCD) 57

Section—17(3)(d)

Absence without leave
— Absence without leave for more than ten days after expiry of the leave
initially granted or extended

Worker is guilty of misconduct -— Employer may terminate the
service by giving notice to worker to show cause why his lien should not be
terminated or he can be proceeded against for misconduct. –

Works Manager, G.E. C’. Manufacturing of Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Chairman.
Labour court, Chittagong amid another: 1BLD (HCD)484

Ref: 3JDLR(AI))l 19.

Section—17(3)(h)

Worker — Misconduct
— Whether single act of neglect would constitute misconduct — If the Omission
and negligence of the en ployee is of a serious nature then a single act of
neglect of work would constitution misconduct.

Managing Partner, MIS. Bank Line avigation Company Vs. Chairman, Second
Labour Court and another and Md. Abdullab Vs. Chairman, Second Labour Court and
others; 1BLD (HCD) 470

Rcf: AJ.R. 1957(SC)326; A.LR. 1963 (SC)1756; 33 DLRI49—Cited.

Section—18

Worker—The Dacca
Improvement Trust is not a commercial or Industrial establishment and his
employees are not workers within the meaning of section 2(v) of the Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965—Such employees cannot enforce the
provision of section 18 of that Act relating to subsistence allowance pending
inquiry into misconduct in a proceeding under section 34 of the Industrial
Relations Ordinance, 1969 — Terms and conditions of such employees are
regulated by the Town Improvement Act and Rules framed there under.

Chairman, D.L T. and another Vs. Chairman, 2nd Labour Court and
another;  1BLD (AD)462

Section—18( 1)

Domestic Enquiry
Jurisdiction of Labour Court A Labour Court is not a Court of appeal sitting
over the finding of domestic enquiry — nor is the Enquiry Officer/Enquiry Committee
is a Criminal Court for the purpose of following procedures of such enquiry —
Labour Court can only interfere with the finding of Enquiry Office.. Enquiry
Committee if it is found that the enquiry was held unfairly with bad faith and
complying with the principles of the of natural justice and without following
the procedure laid down in section 18(I) of the Employment of Labour (Standing
Orders) Act. 1969 — Labour Court arrogated to itself the power of the appellate
authority against Enquiry Officer when it found the delinquent iot guilty —
Unless violation of the procedure laid down in section 18(1) or any unfair sc
or bad faith or malafide is found in the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer,
the Labour Court cannot reverse his finding.

Manager, Zeal Bangla Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman, First Labour Court
and an other; 2BLD (HCD) 57

Section—25

Appllcation.conversion
of
—An application under section 34 of the Ordinance when can be converted
into an application tinder section 25 of the Employment of Labour (Standing
Orders) Act, 1969.

Per Fazie Munim, J(K. Hossain, C.J. and K.M. subhan, J Concurring)

In the absence pf compliance of statutory requirements of
section 25 of the Act no worker can hope to have his application under section
34 of the Ordinance treated as an application under section 25 of the Act — The
employee’s application under section 34 could be converted under section 25 if
it were found that prior to his filing the application under section 34 he
fulfilled the provisions of clause (a) and (b) of section 25 of the Act.

Per Ruhul Islam, J
(dissenting).

In a case where both provisions of section 25 of the Act and
section 34 of the Ordinance are applicable, it is open to the aggrieved worker
to choose his case. — If he chooses to seek his remedy under section 25, in
that case, he is required to full filed the requirements of the section — But
if he chooses to seek his remedy under section 34, the application will not be
fettered with the limitations as provided in section 25 of the Act — Since it
is open to an aggrieved worker to choose his course in either of the two laws,
in a proper case, it, would be within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to
convert an application as per requirement.

James Finlay and Co. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dacca and
another; and Mir Ally Akbar Vs. James Finlay and Co. Ltd. and another;
1BLD(AD)2 1

Ref: 28 DLR 178; 27 DLR98; W.P. No. 397 of I 974(unreported) —
Cited.Section—25 with and 561A Cr.P.C.

Quashmant of criminal
proceeding in the Labour Court
— Jurisdiction of Labour Court ordering
reinstatement cannot be challenged in a proceeding for quashing the criminal
case — When the Managing Director of the company did not pass the order of
dismissal and he is not responsible for not reinstating the dismissed worker,
criminal case against him cannot proceed.

Md. Mohammadul Hoque Vs. Md. Shamsul Alam, 3BLD(HD)26O

Section—25

Employee’s remedy
The very moment it is found that the ptainiff is a worker, the specific remedy
of his grievance lies in the Labour Court and there is the implied ouster of
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Senior Manager, Messers Dost Textile Mills Ltd. and another Vs.
Sudhansu Bikash Nath; 8BLD (AD) 66 –

Ref: 30 DLR 219 — Cited.

Section—25(a)

Limitation period of a
worker’s grievance petition
— Whether a worker is required to send his
grievance petition by registered post well ahead of fifteen days so that the
registered grievance petition reaches his employer within fifteen days of the
cause of action — The worker concerned is to send his grievance petition by
registered post within fifteen days of the accrual of the cause of such
grievance — The worker concerned will complete his legal obligation by posting
his grievance petition by registered post within fifteen days.

Abul Kalam Vs. The Chairman, Labour Court, Chittagong and another; 7BLD
(HCD)87

Section—25(b)

Duty of the Labour
Court
— When material evidence is on record, Labour Court acted illegally
in ignoring such evidence — Such a decision is illegal and without lawful
authority.

Md. Umed Ali Sarkar Vs. The Chairman, Labour Court, Rajshahi and
others; 2BLD (HCD) 188

Section—25(b)

Complaint to the Labour
Court
— Grievance petition within time is a precondition — In order to make
a complaint before the Labour Court the provision of submission of grievance
petition within 15 days must be fulfilled and only after such fulfillment the
complaint can be made to the Labour Court.

M/s. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. represented by the Deputy General Manager
Vs. The Chairman, Second Labour Court and another; 8BLD (HCD)254

Ref: 29 DLR 296; 1BLD (AD) 2I—Cited.

Section—25(b)

Orders of termination
— When Labour Court’s decision can be interfered — Labour Court is a special
type of Court and its judgment can be interfered only if it is found that the
judgment is without or in excess of jurisdiction or is based on inadmissible
evidence.

Syed Shainsul Huq Chowdhury and others Vs. chairman, 2nd Labour Court,
Dhaka and others; 9BLD (HCD)9

Section—25(b)

Jurisdiction of Labour
Court
—The Labour Court is not a Court of appeal and io empowered under
section 25(b) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965, to
re-examine and re-assess the evidence duly recorded and assessed by the
Domestic Tribunal in order to come to a different conclusion of its own to hold
that the charge has not been proved — Whenever the Labour Court so does, its
judgment and order becon without lawful authority.

Where the Labour Court finds no procedural defect in holding
enquiry by the Domestic Tribunal and the guilt is proved before the Domestic
Tribunal, the Labour Court is- not competent to put the albatross of an
unwanted official round its neck on setting aside the order of dismissal and
directing reinstatement of an undesirable worker against whom the charge of
misconduct mentioned in section 17 of the Act is established before the
Domestic Tribunal.

The Chittagong Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, Labour Court,
Chittagong and another. 1IBLD(HCD)236 :12 BLD (HCD)86

Ref: 34DLRI; 33DLRI; B.S.C.R. Vol. Nos. Iand2at page
167—Cited.

Section—25(C)

Domestic enqiry
Jurisdiction of Labour Court — A Labour Court is not a Court of appeal sitting
over the finding of a domestic enquiry—nor is the Enquiry Officer/Enquiry
Committee is a criminal Court for the purpose of following procedures of such
enquiry — Labour Court can only interfere with the finding of the Enquiry
Officer/Enquiry Committee if it is found that the enquiry was held unfairly,
with bad faith and without complying with the principles of the rules of
natural justice and without following the procedures laid down in section 18(1)
of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act — Labour Court arrogated to
itself the power of the appellate authority against an Enquiry Officer when it
found the delinquent not guilty — Unless violation of the procedures laid down
in section 18(1) or any unfairness or bad faith or malafide is found in the
proceeding before the Enquiry Officer the Labour Court cannot reverse his
finding.

Manager, Zeal Bangla Sugar Mills’s Ltd. Vs. Chairman, First Labour
Court and another; 2BLD (HCD)57

Section—25(C)

Reinstatement in
service
— Even when the proceeding before the Enquiry Officers suffers from
want of proper compliance with the procedures laid down by the law warranting quashment
of the dismissal order, reinstatement cannot follow as a matter of course — In
a dispute relating to allegation of theft by the employer against the employee,
there always remains an incongenial relationship between the parties — In such
a relationship it would be no appropriate case where reinstatement would be
allowed.

Manager, Zeal Bangla Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman, First Labour Court
and another; 2BLD (HCD) 57

Section—26

Labour Court whether
exercises powers of Magistrate 1st Class
— Labour Court trying a case under
the provisions of the Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 is not
invested with the powers of a Magistrate 1st Class.

In the absence of any specific provision investing the Labour
Court with powers of a Magistrate 1st Class, the provision made in sub-section
4 of Section 27 is not sufficient to invest the Labour Court acting under the
provisions of Standing Order Act, 1965 with the powers of a Magistrate .1St
Class — Labour Court cannot be taken to be acting as a Magistrate 1st Class
when trying an offence under section 26 of the Standing Orders Act, 1965.

Anisuzzaman and others Vs. Chairman, First Labour Court and another;
2BLD (HCD)93

Ref: 9DLR424; 2DLR(WP)62; 32DLR

(AD)l; 32 DLR 142; 16 PLD(Dacca) 877; 25 DLR 192; 22 DLR 569;
29 DLR 358 — Cited.

Section—26

Quashing of criminal
proceeding
— Whether jurisdiction of the High Court Division has been taken
away to quash proceedings of a criminal case before the Labour Court under MLO
19 of 1982 — Jurisdiction of the High Court Division has not been taken away
expressly by MLO 19 of 1982 — High Court Division can entertain the application
for quashing the proceedings. under section 26 of the Employment of Labour
(Standing Orders) Act, 1965 — Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), S. 561A —
Martial Law Order No. 19 of 1982.

Asaduzzaman and another Vs. Chairman, Second Labour Court and others;
5BLD (AD) 196

Ref: AJ.R. 1949 (F.C.)1 —Cited.

Section—26

Jurisdiction to award
punishment
— Question of Labour Court’s jurisdiction for non-compliance of
its order The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to award penalty is not
attracted unless an accused refuses or fails to comply with an order passed by
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 judgment was for an ascertained sum the respondent
could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Court for penalty, but for an
unascertained sum the Labour Court simply has no jurisdiction to proceed
against the petitioner

Ltd. Col. (Rtd) Sekender Miah Vs. Chairman, 1st Labour c’ourt, Dhaka
and another; 9BLD (HCD) 166

Section—27

Whether labGur Court
invested with power of Magistrate
—In the absence of any specific provision
investing the Labour Court with powers of a Magistrate 1st class, the provision
made in sub-section 4 of the section, 27 is not sufficient to invest the Labour
Court acting under the provisions of Standing Orders Act, 1965 with the powers
Of a Magistrate I st Class — Labour Court cannot be taken to be acting as a
Magistrate 1st Class when trying an offence under section 26 of the Standing
Orders Act, 1965.

Anisuzzaman and others Vs. Chairman, 1st Labour Court and another; 2BLD
(II CD)93

Ref: 9 DLR424; 2 DLR(WP)62 — Cited.

 

Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

Employment
of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965

 

Section-4

The respondent
no 2 has given annual increments and other service benefits to the petitioner
as per law like permanent worker and his salary was fixed like a permanent
Worker. Therefore, in our view the case reported in 46 DLR 143 is fully
applicable to the facts of the present case and the mere fact that the
petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis will not disentitle him from getting
the benefit under section 4 of the Employment of Labour (standing orders) Act,
1965.

Samir Malaker Vs. Labour Court & Ors 11 BLT (HCD)-380

Section- 16

Discharged
from service on the ground “continued il1-health”—Respondent No. 2 was performing the
functions of Head Sarder in the winding department of the appellant. He was
continually absent from 19-9-80 due to his illness. His last application for
leave is dated 25-2-81. In the said application he stated that he was
improving, but the medical certificates appended thereto is silent about his
recovery and failed to recover from the said illness during the course of 5
months. The appellant employer has rightly takes the view that respondent No.2
was suffering from “continued ill-health” and would not be in a fit and sound
condition of health to perform his assigned duties.

M/S. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Second Labour
Court. 513LT (AD)-289

Section-19

An order
of termination—Appellant is the employer and respondent No. 2, a driver of the
appellant’s establishment—on the allegations of unauthorised absence for 155
days the employer drew a regular proceeding against the driver charging him
with Misconduct—an enquiry was held by the employer during which the driver was
heard in person and on conclusion of the enquiry a report was submitted finding
him guilty of Misconduct by unauthorised and wilful absence. On the basis of
this report he was dismissed from service. He filed a grievance petition before
the employer which was rejected. Thereupon he filed a complaint before the
Labour Court, under section 25 of the Act. The Labour Court did not find any
error in the procedure adopted for the domestic enquiry or in the order of
dismissal. Nevertheless, the Labour Court ordered for the driver’s
re-instatement. The Labour Court’s order was unsuccessfully challenged, before
the High Court Division—finds it difficult to defend the Labour Courts order
for reinstatement as contended by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2
— Held: In view of this position, we need not restore the order of dismissal
and we think it a fit case for termination instead under section 19 of the Act
with all termination benefits.

Chittagong Urea Fertilizer Ltd. Vs. Labour
Court Ctg & Ors. 3BLT (AD) -201

Section-25(1)(a)

It is
incumbent under Section 25(1)(a) of the Act to submit a grievance petition in
writing by registered post before approaching the Labour Court for redress.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any grievance petition in writing to
his employer by registered post.

Md. Joynal Abedin Vs. First Labour Court &
Ors. 9BLT (AD)-202

Section – 25(1)(a)

Whether grievance petition was required to be
sent by registered post.

Under
the provision of Section 25(1)(a) of the Act, it is the unambiguous obligation
of the worker concerned to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in
writing within fifteen days no matter how it is submitted. Only legal obligation
the worker has to ensure that he submits his grievance to the employer within
fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance. The prime
necessity is to ensure that it reaches. The question as to how it is sent is
not at all a deciding factor inspite of the words, “…..shall submit his
grievance to his employer, in writing, by registered post within fifteen
days…..” in the Act.

BRTC Vs. Md. Esken Mollick & Anr. 15 BLT
(AD) 156

Section-25 (1) (b)

(a) The
respondent No. 2 had been Serving as Traffic Inspector — his duties were
neither managerial nor administrative in nature—definition of worker in the
concerned law, the respondent No. 2 was a worker under the B.R.T.C.

B.R.T.C. Vs Chairman First Labour Court 2BLT
(HCD)-34

(b)
Respondent No, 2 was charge sheeted for the offence of not depositing road tax
for vehicle No. 3001 to the tune of Tk. 465/- —When the default was detected
the authority directed him to deposit the tax and the fine imposed due to his
default. which he was bound to pay by subsequent deposit of tax with fine
didn’t absolve the respondent No. 2 from the liability of disciplinary action
for Misconduct—authority had the power to take action for such Misconduct and
accordingly the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded. So it cannot
be said that the respondent worker was punished twice for the same offence —
Rule is made absolute.

B.R.T.C. Vs. Chairman First Labour Court 2BLT
(HCD)-34

Section-25 (1) (b)

Respondent
No. 2 was employed as a permanent worker of the petitioner’s Jute Mills. On
December 8, 1985 respondent No. 2 was served with a charge sheet on the
allegation that he was caught red-handed on December 7, 1985 while stealing 14
bundles of finished goods (sewed sacks) of previous date with a view to showing
the same to have been sewed by him in order to get more 1ages—an enquiry
committee held enquiry in the matter and found respondent No. 2 guilty of the
charges, leveled against him and accordingly he was dismissed from his service.
He submitted a grievance petition before the petitioner which was rejected and
then he filed the complaint case in the Labour Court — on consideration of the
evidence, Labour Court allowed the complaint case. The Labour Court’s order was
unsuccessfully challenged before the High Court Division:—Held Admittedly there
was no removal of any goods from the possession of the petitioner mills- by
respondent No 2 and as such the Labour Court rightly found that there was no
offence of theft. At the most the delinquent might have been charged for an
attempt to realise enhanced wages by showing increased number of work; but the
delinquent was charged for committing the offence of theft. As such the charge
framed against the delinquent was a Misconceived one and it cannot be said that
the Labour Court sat on a judgment over the findings Of the domestic enquiry
committee—the petition is dismissed.

Khulna Labour Court, & Ors Vs. Chairman
Khulna Labour Court & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-203.