Syed Abu Hossain Arshad Vs. Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation, 54 DLR (AD) (2002) 33

Case No: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1155, 1156 & 1157 of 1999

Judge: Md. Gholam Rabbani,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mr. S. M. Munir Sharif,Mr. Md. Khalilur Rahman,,

Citation: 54 DLR (AD) (2002) 33

Case Year: 2002

Appellant: Syed Abu Hossain Arshad

Respondent: Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation

Subject: Labour Law,

Delivery Date: 2001-7-29

 
Supreme Court  
Appellate Division  
(Civil)  
 
Present:
Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, CJ.
Md. Golam Rabbani, J.
Md. Ruhul Amin, J.
Md. Fazlul Karim, J.
 
Syed Abu Hossain Arshad and others
…………………..Petitioners
Vs.  
Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation and ors
……….…………Respondents
 
Judgment
July 29, 2001.
 
The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Section 34 
Section 34 of the IRO allows a workman to apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law.  
 
Lawyers Involved:
SM Munir Advocate, instructed by Sharifuddin Chaklader Advocate-on-Record—For Petitioners. (In all cases)
Khalilur Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Md Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record—For Respondent No. 2. (In all the cases).
Not represented— Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. (In all the cases)  
 
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1155, 1156 & 1157 of 1999.  
(From the judgment and order dated 15-7-1999 by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 6 to 1995)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Md. Gholam Rabbani J.
 
Syed Abu Hossain Arshad, Md. Nazrul Islam and Md. Majed Ali Khan are the petitioners respectively in Leave Petition Nos. 1155 to 1157 of 1999. While serving in Faridpur Sugar Mills under Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation as Cane Development Inspectors, they were posted/promoted to the post of senior officers in the said Mills. Being aggrieved by this order they respectively filed IRO Case Nos. 39, 36 and 35 of 1994 in the Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, briefly, IRO., on the ground that the orders of posting were designed to restrain them from carrying on their trade union activities.  
 
2. The said three cases were disposed of simultaneously on 25-10-1994 and were all allowed Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation and Faridpur Sugar Mills jointly obtained Rule in Writ Petition Nos. 6 to 8 of 1995 against the said three judgment of the Labour Court. By the analogous judgment and order dated 15-7-1999 impugned in these leave petitions, the High Court Division made the Rule absolute and set aside the aforesaid judgment of the Labour Court. Under the circumstances by this order all the three leave petitions will be disposed of.  
 
3. Leave petitioners’ learned Advocate submits that the High Court Division was wrong to hold that the posting of the leave petitioners from the post of Cane Development Inspectors to that of the Junior Officers was not promotion, but a design to restrain them from carrying on their trade union activities.  
 
4. The said submissions have got no merit. Firstly, it has got no merit in legal point of view because section 34 of the IRO only allows a workman to apply to the Labour Court for the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law. In the instant cases the impugned posting even if it is not treated, as promotion does not come within the scope of section 34. Secondly, it has got no merit in view of factual position because it was the case of the employer before the High Court Division that similar promotions/postings were made in all the nationalized Sugar Mills including Faridpur Sugar Mills under the Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation.  
 
In view of the aforesaid law, facts and circumstances all the three leave petitions are dismissed.  
 
Ed.