Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969



Section- 19

It appears that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Judges pf the High Court Division wrongly held the termination in question having been passed during pendency of the I.R.O. case is mala fide, although they themselves held that the IRO case itself was not maintainable. The impugned letter of termination does not contain any stigma upon respondent No, 2 and on the face of it, it is a termination simpliciter and is well covered by the provision of Section- 19 of the Act. The termination was not a sequal to any trade union activity on the part of respondent No. 2 nor does he claim that no termination benefit was given to him. [Para-10]

Adamji Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Chairman & Anr. 7 BLT(AD)-320

The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Read with Industrial Relations (Regulation) Ordinance, 1982 Section – 6(8)

Industrial dispute case — Praying for a direction upon the ‘Petitioner Mill to pay compensation to the workers covered by Shops and Establishment Act, 1965 — The claim raised by the respondent Union was an Industrial Dispute as contemplated in Industrial Relation Ordinance of 1969 ,read with Industrial Relations (Regulation) Ordinance of 1982. The respondent Union having failed to reach to a settlement by negotiation approached the conciliator to conciliate in dispute raised arid the conciliator also having failed to a conciliation, issued a certificate of failure and thereafter respondent Union under section 6(8) of the Ordinance of 1982 filed an application for adjudication of dispute. On the promulgation of the Ordinance of 1982 respondent Union had no other alternative but to file a case before the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised. So, it cannot be said that the case before the Labour Court was no maintainable under the Ordinance of 1982. The Ordinance of 1982 is a procedural law and got retrospectively and the claim of the respondent Union in the form of a Industrial Dispute can be very well adjudicated by the labour court under the said Ordinance. [Para – 15 & 20]

North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Labour Appellate Tribunal 5BLT (HCD)-202

Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969,



worker, is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management
and does not include a person who works under the control and supervision of a
contractor. The terms of employment must establish a relationship of master and
servant or employer and employee between the person employed and the
establishment, and it is not enough that the person is working in the premises
of a certain establishment.

Paper Mills Workers Union v. Karnaphuli Paper Mills Ltd. and another, 22 BLD (AD)


and 10

cannot be said that Section 5 of the amending Act is violative of Article 38 of
the Constitution and so it cannot be said to be void.

Biman Sramik Union and ors Vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions and others, 13 BLD
(HCD) 20.

Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Vs. Jagadish Swarup, A.I.R. 1971(S.C966; Tamizuddin
Ahmed Vs, Pakistan, P.L.D. 1964 (S.C.)673; Kesoram Rayon Workmen’s Union Vs.
Registrar of Trade Unions, A.I.R. 1967 .(Cal)507—Cited.



and Powers of Labour Court

Labour Court acts as a civil court for a limited purpose. So far as the
procedural matter is concerned it will not exercise the powers like those given
in Order IX or Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which the
Civil Court exercises in a suit.

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

Muhammad Sabir Vs. The Agent Tarbela Joint Venture, Hazara, 1976 P.L.C. 185;
Management Board of A.R. Howlader Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, First
Labour Court, Dhaka, 28 DLR 368; Mis. Karim Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman,
Second Labour Court, Dhaka, 42 DLR 255—Cited.



in a given case the employer unilaterally acts detrimental to the emoluments
and benefits obtained under a terminated settlement such emoluments and
benefits shall continue to remain in force till a new agreement is reached
between the employer and the workers or an award is made by the Labour Court.

Packages Limited Vs Member Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others, 20

The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J. Bahadur and ors, AIR 1980 (SC)
2181; Pakistan River Steamers Ltd. Vs. Province of East Pakistan and ors, PLD
1961 (SC)393—relied.






Sections —2 (XXVIII), 34 and 43

Worker dismissal not in connection with
industrial dispute
—A dismissed worker, whose dismissal is not in connection
with or in consequence of, or has not led to, an industrial dispute, cannot
come within the purview of section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance

Finlay and Co. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dacca and another, 1BLD
(AD) 21

28 DLRI6O; 30 DLR (SC) 252; 28 DLR 178; 13 DLR (SC)280—Cited.


Section — 3(c)

Freedom of Trade Unions—.–Under
section 3(c) of the Ordinance trade unions and employees’ associations shall
have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules to, elect their
representatives in full freedom to organise their administration and activities
and to formulate their programmers.

Paper Mills Sramik Karmachan Union Vs. Registrars of Trade Unions and others,
11BLD (HCD)367



Group of establishments—the expression
‘group of establishments in clause (1) of sub-section (1) of section 7 — A if
the Ordinance refers to the group o establishments owned by different, separate
and independent owners and not by the same owner in which case the workers of
such group of establishments will be disqualified for being members of one
registered union but the three halls in the present case being owned by the
different, separate and independent owners, namely the petitioners the workers
thereof cannot be considered to be workers of one group of establishments and
they cannot, therefore, form one registered union.

Chitrabani Ltd. and others Vs. Naogaon Cinema Hall Sramajibi Union and another,


Section — 10(1)(e)(i)

Power of Registrar of Trade Union to cancel
-—-Under section 10(1)(e)(i) of the Ordinance, the Registrar of
a Trade Union may cancel the registration of a trade union if the trade union
has made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with the
Ordinance or the Rules and if the trade union has contravened any provision of
the Ordinance or the Rules.

Chitrabani Ltd. and ors. Vs. Naogaon Cinema Hall Sramajibi Union and another,
12BLD (HCD) 71


Section — 10(3)

Matter pending before Registrar of Trade
—Since the Registrar of Trade Unions has to apply to the Labour Court
under section 10(3) of the Ordinance and the employers have furnished some materials
to that effect the matter is at least pending with the Registrar of Trade

United Commercial Bank Karmachari Union Vs.
S.M. Shafiul Azam and others, 11BLD (AD) 326


Section —34

Enforcement of right—Section 34 of the
Ordinance is not meant for establishment of any right but it provides for
enforcement of any existing right guaranteed or secured by law, award or

Power Development Board and others Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, Khulna Division
and another, 1BLD (AD)59


Sections — 34, 36 and 43

Labour Court’s Power—Whether it can
grant temporary injunction—Labour Court has no power of the civil Court which
empowers the Labour Court, while adjudicating dispute, to grant temporary
injunction—Temporary injunction can only be granted in a suit and by a civil
Court by following the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure—The power and
procedure being absent with the Labour Court while adjudicating individual
disputes, and not industrial disputes there is no scope for a Labour Court to
grant temporary injunction.

Chittagong Port Authority Vs. Kalipada Dey and others, 8BLD (HCD) 52


Section — 34

Jurisdiction of Labour Court—Jurisdiction
with regard to an employee of the Railway Board — The respondent’s petition
before the Labour Court relates to terms and conditions of his service — In
view of the falt that Administrative Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction in the
matter, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

General Manager (West), Bangladesh Railway and another Vs. The Chairman, Labour
Court, Rajshahi and another, 8BLD(HCD)125


Section — 34

Enforcement of service benefits
Question of applicability of memorandums giving benefits to freedom fighter
Govt. servants to The case of the employees of a Limited Company — The
memorandums were mere executive orders giving excreta benefits — They were
passed in exercise of inherent discretionary powers and they have no force of
law — The petitioner company being a Public Limited Company cannot be said to
be bound by the memorandums as they cannot be enforced as instructions issued
under any statutory law or rules framed there under.

Bangladesh Can Company Ld. is. Chairman, Labour Court, Chittagong and others,
10BLD (HCD) 61

31 DLR 58; 40 DLR 520 — relied upon.


Section —34

Labour Courts Power—In the absence any
cogent evidence to establish that the aforesaid posts are of different and
separate scales and the Labour Court having found that it was not proved,
instead of rejecting the prayer and leaving the matter undecided and still
allowing the application without any direction on that point, acted illegally
and without jurisdiction in giving the benefit allowing all the applications.

Battery Manufacturers Ltd. and others Vs. The Chairman, Second Labour Court and
another 1IBLD(HCD)141


Sections — 34, 36(2)

Labour Court: Civil Court for Limited
—An adjudication on an industrial dispute under section 36(2) or a
proceeding on an application under section 34 of the Ordinance for enforcement
of any guaranteed or secured right, though a matter of civil nature, is not a
suit and does not attract all the panoply of powers of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In adjudicating or determining an industrial dispute, the Labour
Court acts as a civil Court for limited purpose and it will not exercise the
powers like those given in Order IX or Order XXXIX, rule I of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which the civil Court may exercise in a suit, but are in no sense
necessary for deciding an industrial dispute.

Bank Vs. The Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka and another, 12BLD (AD) 72

19 DLR(HCD)612; 29 DLR (HCD) 148; 33 DLR (HCD) 376; 29 DLR(HCD)ll; 27
DLR(HCD)367; 28 DLR(HCD) 369; 39 DLR(HCD)39; PLD 1973 Karachi 383; PLD 1973
Karachil89; PLD1975(SC)32: 105 A.C. 369: PLD 1971 (SC) 243; 30 DLR (SC) 251;
AJ.R. I 973(SC) 1016: 39DLR(AD)59— Cited.


Section — 35(2)(7)

Labour Court — Failure of the Chairman
to consult one member. who did not attend the sitting of the Court, does not
render the decision of the Court invalid.

Manager, Jamuna Oil Company Ltd. Vs. Golap Rahinan and another, 2BLD(AD) 1

27 DLR 158; 26 DLR(SC) 33; 31 DLR 124-Cited.


Section —36

Labour Court — Exparte order —
Application for setting aside an exparte order under Order IX of the Code of
Civil Procedure is maintainable.

Executive Director, Raj Textile Mills Ltd.
Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, Khulna and another, 1BLD (HD)175

Section — 36

Whether appeal lies against an order of
conviction and sentence passed by the Labour Court under section 56 of the
. — Whether jurisdiction of the High Court Division to entertain an
appeal under section 36 of the Ordinance has been ousted by Martial Law Order
No. 19 of 1982 — An appeal lies to the High Court Division against conviction
and sentence passed by the Labour Court as it deemed to be a Court of Sessions.
for the purpose of appeal from all sentences — When offences are tried the
Labour Court acts as a Magistrate 1st Class but when punishment is given and
sentence is recorded by it then for the purpose of appeal it shall be deemed to
be a Court of Sessions—All appeals from a Court of Sessions lie to the High
Court Division— MLO 19 of 1982 dealt with the decision not with award or
sentence—So jurisdiction of the High Court Division to entertain an appeal
against sentence passed by the Labout Court is not ousted—Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898 (V of l898),S. 410—Martial Law Order No. 19 of 1982 (MLO 19 of

Hossain and others Vs. Bangladesh Milk Producers Co-operative Union Ltd. 5BLD (AD)193

A.I.R. 1949 (FC)I —Cited.


Section — 36(1)

Labour Court—Whether the Labour Court
constituted under Industrial Relations Ordinance.l969 as amended, has power to
grant interim or temporary orders of stay or injunction to keep the status quo
of the subject matter of the dispute till its final disposal — The industrial
dispute referred to in section 36(I) must be referable to the definition ofthe
word as given in section 2(XIII) of the I.R.O. which includes all disputes as
have been contemplated in the LR.O.—It would therefore be reasonable to hold
that the Labour Court constituted under the I.R.O. shall be deemed to be a
civil Court and shall take the same power as are vested in such Court under the
Code of Civil Procedure — When a Labour Court ,is deemed to be a civil Court
and has the same powers as are vested in the civil Court it must have power to
grant injunction or stay to preserve the subject-matter of the dispute untjl it
is fiiially decided—These powers to pass ternporary or ad-interim order are
designed to preserve and protect the subject matter of the dispute under Order
39 Rule I of C.P.C. pending final determination of the case.

Bank Ltd. Vs. The Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka and another, 6BLD (HCD)378

29 DLR (HCD)148; 30 DLR(HCD) 141; 19 DLR(Dhaka) 612; 33 DLR 376; II DLR(SC)
140— Cited.


Section —36

Exparte hearing—When permissible—The
law does hot contemplate an exparte hearing because the defendant fails to file
a written statement—If the defendant fails to file a written statement the
Court shall fix the case for hearing in default of written statement — On the
date so fixed the defendantcan still appear and argue his case without the
written statement — The defendant retains the right to appear on the date of
hearing and participate in the trial — If the defendant is precluded from
participating at the .trial then the trial itself is without ‘jurisdiction’
because Law does not contemplate an exparte hearing when the defendant fails to
file a written statement — Late realisation of adjournment cost cannot be a
ground for shutting the door of justice on the face of the petitioner.

Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman, 3rd Labour Court, Dhaka and another, 8
BLD(HD)1: 8BLD(HD)236

33 DLR 376; 19 DLR 12; PLD 1964 (SC) 97: A.I.R. 1938(Bom) 470; 29 DLR 148:


Section — 36

Labour Court: procedure—Procedure to be
followed by the Labour Court while deciding individual dispute — In the absence
of any procedure being provided the Labour Court is left with its discretion to
follow the procedure which it finds expedient for maintaining and securing
rules of natural justice. A Labour Court is to decide an application submitted
by an individual worker judicially and not arbitrarily and may follow its own procedure
on the principle of natural justice.

chittagong Port Authority Vs. Kalipada Dey and ors, 8BLD(HCD) 52

PLD l972(Lahore) 603 —Cited.


Section — 36

Ex-parte order by Labour Court
Jurisdiction to set aside such order — In view of the conflicting decisions as
to applicability of the provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure for
setting aside exparte order, the ratio decided of the case reported in 29 DLR
148 is followed and it is decided that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction
to set aside exparte order under the Code.

Adainjee Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. The Chairman 3rd Labour court, Dhaka and another,
8BLD (HCD)236: 8BLD(HCD) I

33 DLR 376; 19 DLR 612: 29 DLR148:–Cited.


Sections — 36(3) and 64

Labour Court: Jurisdiction to by offence—Under
the provision of section 363k I of the Ordinance the Labour Court has be vested
with the power of the Magistrate Ig Class for the purpose of trying an offence
under the Ordinance.

the provision of section 64 of the Ordinance the Labour Court and the
Magistrate 1st class having jurisdiction in the matte shall have concurrent
jurisdiction to try m offence punishable under the said Ordinance.

chowdhury Vs. Masiuddawllah and another, 10 BLD (HCD) 440

5 BLD (AD) 278: — Not applicable.


Section — 36(2)

Labour Court-Power of Injunction— An
order of stay in the nature of an in junction under Order XXX1X Rule I of the
Code of Civil Procedure or under sections 52 and 53 of the Specific Relief Act,
as available in a suit, is not so available in any proceeding before the Labour
Court, despite the provisior of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the I.R.ft
under which it is deemed as a civil Court.

Pubali Bank Vs. The chairman, Fire Labour
Court, Dhaka and another, 12BLD(AD)72

19 DLR (HCD) 612: 29 1)LR(HCD

33 DLR (HCI))376: 29 DLR(HCL))II; 27 DLR (HCD) 367; 28 DLR (HCD) 369: 39 DLR
(HCD) 39; PLD 1973 (Karachi) 3 – PLD 1973 (Karachi) 189; PLD 1975 (SC) 3_;
105A.C.369; PLD 197 1(SC)243; 30 DLR(SC) 251; AIR. 1973 (SC) 1016; 39 DLR (AD)


Section — 47B

Transfer of a trade union leader — Plea
of protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority —
Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade
union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those
leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C. — The
basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of
the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a
condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview f
the Administrative Tribunal which has the lull power to give complete relief to
an applicant and then the right of a trade union leader in such a case must
yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution — Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981), S. 4 — Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972,
Article — 117(2).

Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another,
10BLD (AD)71

1968(1) All.E.R. 433 (439 — 440); (1948) 1 K.B. 721; 33 DLR (AD)305 — Cited.