Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1974


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

Sections 9, 10(3) & 11–

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.

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


Sections 9, 10(3) & 11–

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.

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.