Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1974

 

Newspaper
Employees (Conditions of Service) Act [XXX of 1974]


Sections 9, 10(3) & 11–

“Person
aggri­eved”– Its meaning and dimension–In our Constitution the petitioner
seeking enforcement of a fundamental right must be a person aggrieved. Our
Constitution is not at pari materia with the Indian Constitution on this point.
The decisions of the Indian jurisdiction on public interest litigation are
hardly apt in our situation. The petitioner is not acting pro bono publico but
in the interest of its members. The real question in this case is whether the
petitioner has the right to move the writ petition in a representative
capacity. The High Court Division has rightly relied upon the case of 29 DLR
188 where the question has been answered in the negative. The petitioner may
represent the employers in the Wage Board but its locus standi to act on behalf
of its members in an application under Article 102 of the Constitution is just
not there.

Bangladesh
Sangbadpatra Parishad (BSP) vs Bangladesh 43 DLR (AD) 126.

 

Sections 9, 10(3) & 11–

“Person
aggri­eved”– Question of locus standi to file writ petition–Whether
Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad, a registered association of owners of the
newspapers and newspaper organisations in Bangladesh, is competent to challenge
the validity of the constitution of Wage Board and its authority of fixing
minimum wages for newspaper employees.

Held–In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner Bangladesh Sangbadpatra
Parishad is not a “person aggrieved” to question the award of Wage
Board or the connected law, as it has nothing to lose or win by the impugned
award. It is the owners of newspapers and the employees who are affected by the
award and not Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad. This Parishad may represent the
employers anywhere but it has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 102 of the Constitution.

Bangladesh
Sangbadpatra Parishad vs Bangla­desh 43 DLR 424.

 

Regulation No. 11(1)–

From a
perusal of the Annexures it appears the respondent acted in his administrative,
managerial and supervisory capacity and by no stretch of imagination he is to
be called a worker.

M Sanaullah
Noori & ors vs Chairman, 3rd Labour Court 53 DLR 362.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.