Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 708 of 1999
Judge: KM Hasan ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mustafa Niaz Muhammad,,
Citation: 55 DLR (AD) (2003) 91
Case Year: 2003
Appellant: Mozibul Huq
Respondent: Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others
Subject: Administrative Law,
Delivery Date: 2002-2-6
Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others, 2003,
55 DLR (AD) (2003) 91
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury CJ
Md. Ruhul Amin J
KM Hasan J
Mozibul Huq ... …………Petitioner
Chairman, 1st Labour Court and others...............Respondents
February 6, 2002.
The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981)
Sections 2 & 4
The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the petitioners application in respect of terms and conditions of his service…………………………(4)
Mustafa Niaz Muhammad, Advocate, instructed by Md. Sharif Uddin Chaklader. Advocate‑on‑Record‑For the Petitioner.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 708 of 1999.
(From the judgment and order dated 7‑3‑1999 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 738 of 1999).
KM Hasan J.- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 7‑3-1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 738 of 1999.
2. The petitioner is an employee of Bangladesh Railway who was appointed as a substitute on 26‑1‑1987. An agreement between the Secretary Railway Division and Railway Sramik Karmachari was signed according to which no worker of Bangladesh Railway would be retrenched. It was further agreed that a worker with 5 years continuous service would be absorbed and regularised in service and be presumed as a permanent worker. But the petitioner was neither absorbed nor his service was regularised by the railway authority in spite of his letter to the respondents for regularisation and absorption. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application to the respondent No. 1, Chairman, 1st Labour Court, Chittagong which was registered as IRO Case No. 13 of 1996 under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Since he was not absorbed and his service was not regularised even after 10 years continuous service the IRO case was rejected on the ground of maintainability. The court held that the Administrative Tribunal is the proper forum for adjudicating the matter. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition which was also summarily rejected.
3. The petitioner's learned Advocate submits that the High Court Division erred in construing that the provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 are not applicable. He further submits that the relief prayed for cannot be given by the Administrative Tribunal.
4. We have considered the submission of the learned Advocate and the judgment of the High Court Division and we are of the view that the Administrative Tribunal Act 1980 being a subsequent Act to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Government Servants' (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the Petitioner's application in respect of terms and conditions of his service. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court Division.
The leave petition is dismissed.