Manager, Satgaon Rubber Bagan Vs. Chairman, 2nd Labour Court, Chittagong and others, VI ADC (2009) 190

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1203-1205 of 2005

Judge: Md. Abdul Matin,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. A. F. Hassan Ariff,,

Citation: VI ADC (2009) 190

Case Year: 2009

Appellant: Manager, Satgaon Rubber Bagan

Respondent: Chairman, Labour Court

Subject: Labour Law,

Delivery Date: 2007-9-4

 
Supreme Court
Appellate Division
(Civil)
 
Present:
Md. Ruhul Amin C J
M.M. Ruhul Amin J
Md. Tafazzul Islam J
Md. Abdul Matin J
 
The Manager, Satgaon Rubber Bagan
….……..Petitioners (In Civil Petition No. 1203 of 2005)
General Manager, Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation
................Petitioners (In Civil Petition No. 1204 of 2005)
Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation
…….........Petitioner (In Civil Petition No. 1205 of 2005)
Vs.
The Second Labour Court, Chittagong and others
……….....Respondents (In Civil Petition No. 1203 of 2005)
Chairman, 2nd Labour Court, Chittagong and others
..…….......Respondents (In Civil Petition No.1204 of 2005)
Bangladesh represented by Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Man Power
…............Respondents (In Civil Petition No. 1205 of 2005)
 
Judgment 
September 4, 2007.
 
The High Court Division  considered these materials on records and came to a definite finding that the respondents though appointed on contractual basis became permanent in view of clause 9 to the appointment letter and officer and office order No. 44 dated 22.10.1997. ……… (10)
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court Division calling for interference by this Court. ….… (11)
 
Lawyers Involved:
A.F. Hassan Ariff, Senior Advocate instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners (In all the cases).
J.B.M. Hasan, Advocate instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No.5 (In Civil Petition 1203 of 2005).
J.B.M. Hasan, Advocate instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No. 15 (In Civil Petition No. 1204 of 2005).
J.B.M. Hasan, Advocate instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-Record-For Respondent No. 9 (In Civil Petition No. 1205 of 2005).
Not represented- Respondent No. 1-4, 6-29 (In Civil Petition No. 1203 of 2005).
Not Represented-Respondent Nos.1-14, 16-49 (In Civil Petition No.1204 of 2005).
Not represented- Respondent Nos.1-8, 10-33 (In Civil Petition No.1205 of2005).
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1203-1205 of 2005.
(From the judgment and order dated 04.04.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 2350, 3748 and 3707 of 2002.)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Abdul Matin J.
 
These petitions for leave to appeal Nos.1203-1205 of 2005 are directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 2350, 3748 and 3707 of 2002 (analogous­ly heard) affirming the judgment and order dated 28.10.2001 passed in I.R.O. Case No. 04 of 2000 as contained in Annexure-A in Writ Petition No. 2350 of 2002 passed by the Second Labour Court Chittagong under Section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
 
2. All the three leave petitions arose out of the same judgment; these were heard anal­ogously and are being disposed of under this judgment.
 
3. The facts leading to the leave petitions are that all the respondents in three writ petitions as first parties filed IRO Case No. 4 of 2000, IRO Case No.1 of 2001 and IRO Case No. 45 of 2001 under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the petitioners as second par­ties in the Second Labour Court, Chittagong stating, inter alia, that they were appointed as "tappers" under the sec­ond parties. There was a condition to the appointment letter that the tappers would undergo three months training and after successful completion of three months training, they would be required to under­go further six months training. After completion of the aforementioned training the first parties were posted in different gar­den as tappers. The first parties served continuously for more than six months and as such, they became permanent tap­pers automatically by operation of law. The second parties were not treating the first parties as permanent and they were not giving the first parties the trade and scale they were entitled to and were depriving them of their legitimate scale of pay and fringe benefits.
 
4. The second parties, the Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation contested all the three I.R.O cases by filing written statements contend­ing that the first parties were not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for as they were barred under Sections 26, 30, 31, 35 and 33 of the Employment of Labour (stand­ing Orders) Act, 1965 and that the first parties being contractual workers, the pro­vision of Section 34 of the Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable to them. The sec­ond parties also denied that the first par­ties were entitled to be the permanent workers of BFIDC.
 
5. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties allowed all the three I.R.O. cases and directed the second parties to confirm the service of the first parties treating them as permanent workers within thirty days from the date of passing of the judg­ment and order.
 
6. As against the judgment of the Second Labour Court the petitioners filed the above mentioned three writ petitions and the High Court Division by the impugned judgment discharged the Rule and affirmed the judgment and order of the Second Labour Court.
 
7. Heard the learned Advocate   and perused the petitions and the judgment of the High Court Division and that of the Labour Court.
 
8.  Main contention raised in the three leave petitions is that the High Court Division as well as the Labour Court com­mitted error of law in not appreciating that the respondents were appointed under the petitioners as tappers purely on contractu­al basis and under the terms of the contract they cannot claim to be the permanent workers.
 
9. It appears from the letter of appoint­ment of the respondents that thele is a clause as clause 9 of the appointment let­ter which runs as under:-
 
‘৯। এই চুক্তির মেয়াদ ১-৭-৯৫ ইং হতে ৩ (তিন) বছরের জব্য বলবত থাকবে।তবে তিন বছর কাল অতিক্রান্ত হওয়া সত্বেও চুক্তির নবায়ন, সংশোধন বা বাতিল করা না হলে একই শর্তাবলীর অধীনে চুক্তি ভিত্তিক টেপারগন কাজ চালিয়া যাইতে পারিবেন ।'
 
10. It further appears from office order No.44 dated 22.10.1997 (Annexure-I- in Writ Petition No. 2350 of 2002) that the authority decided that if the tappers appointed on contractual basis complete four years of satisfactory service, their services shall be made regular. The High Court Division considered these materials on records and came to a definite finding that the respondents though appointed on contractual basis became permanent in view of clause 9 to the appointment letter and officer and office order No. 44 dated 22.10.1997.
 
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court Division calling for interference by this court.
 
In the above facts and circumstances we find no merit in the leave petitions.
Accordingly all the three petitions are dismissed.
 
Ed.