The Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965
Section 4
Though the appellants have its own
rules and could adopt resolutions regulating the terms and conditions of service
but could not adopt the resolution concerning the conditions of the respondents
less favourable to a worker than that the provisions of the law. Kondoker
Mominul Huq, M.D., BGS. Ltd vs Md. Jasimuddin Chowdhury TO, ors. (Mohammad
Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 2ADC 900
Section 4(2)- No work no pay- Section 4(2) of the Act, 1965, acquired a right to be permanent in their respective posts- The petitioners were appointed as casual workers on 'no work no pay' basis against the permanent posts initially for 90 days, because of their continuous services therein for 7/8 years without any gap and thus, they having completed the period of probation of three months as provided in section 4(2) of the Act, 1965, acquired a right to be permanent in their respective posts, the High Court Division did not commit any illegality in making the Rules absolute. ... Bangladesh Biman Corporation =VS= Md. Zahangir Farazi, [9 LM (AD) 323]
Section 16
Section 16 of the Act has vested an
authority in the employer to discharge an employee when he is physically
incapable of serving the employer or suffers from continued ill health or for
such other reason not amounting to misconduct. In such cases the employee shall
be entitled to certain financial benefits. Mohsen Jute Mills vs Chairman,
Khulna (Mohammad Abdur Rouf J(Civil) 2ADC 473
Section 16
The period of illness and the
recurrence of illness are not the only criteria for determining the health of a
worker. It is the nature of the disease, its duration and its effect on the
soundness of the health of the worker in performing his assigned job that
determines his "continued ill-health". M/S. Karim Jute Mills vs
Chairman, Second Labour Court Dhaka (Mustafa Kamal J)(Civil) 2ADC 569
Section 17 (3) (d), 25
...the employee shall submit has
grievance in writing by registered post with- in 15 days of the occurrence of
the cause of such grievance. So, in the law itself the expression "from
the date of order" or "from the date of knowledge are not used. M.A.
Mannan vs The Chairman (Md. Hamidul Haque J)(Civil) 2 ADC 131
Section 17 (3) (b)
If there was a failure on the part of
the Labour Court in granting relief to the respondent under the law the only
course open to the High Court Division was to send the case back to the said
court for passing an order in accordance with-law. Company Bangladesh Tobacco
VS Md. Azizul Huq (Mahmudul Amin Choudhury C. J) (Civil) IADC 198
Section 17
Since the respondent No. 2 was a worker
and served for 15 years in the appellant company we are inclined to allow him
(respondent No. 2) to have some benefits and accordingly we allow the appeal,
but with modification inasmuch as the order of dismissal is converted into an
order of termination and the respondent No. 2 shall be given termination
benefits as permissible under the law. Chittagong Jute Manufacturing Co. Lid vs
Chairman 1st Labour Court, (Md. Fazlul Haque J(Civil) 2ADC 728
Section 17,18,25
Both the courts below committed an
error of law in construing section 17(1)(a) where the provision of section 18
of the Act is not required to be com- plied with because the order of dismissal
is not on ground of misconduct rather it is on ground of conviction and
sentence passed by a Competent Court of Criminal jurisdiction. Star Jute Mills
Lid vs The Chairman, Labour Court (M.A. Aziz J)(Civil)2ADC 825
Section 19
We have called for the office records
and registers of the appellants to see by ourselves whether the respondent was
entitled to the claim of the said amount as a permanent worker but we could not
find any material on record to show that he is a permanent employee or he is
either entitled to any overtime or bonus or any Tiffin, far less any
entitlement of any arear bonus. Shaw Wallace Bangladesh Ltd vs Abdul Hakim
(Mohammad Fazlul Karim J)(Civil) 3 ADC 45
Section 25
Employees of the petitioner herein
filed the aforesaid complaint cases claiming themselves as the workers and they
have been dismissed from the service without following the procedure.
Bangladesh Film Development Corporation vs. The Chairman, First Labour Court
(Md. Ruhul Amin CJ) (Civil) 5ADC 217
Section 25, 18(1)
Writ of certiorari under Article
102(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution authorizes the High Court Division to issue
the writ for declaring an order or an act done or proceeding taken to be
without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Thus the Court could interfere
only when a person proceeded against has done the act or action taken is
vitiated by an act of lack of jurisdiction or by being in excess of
jurisdiction. The Superintendent James Finlay P.L.C. vs The Chairman. 2nd
Labour Court (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J(Civil) 2 ADC 57
Section 25(1) (a) (b)
However a protracted period of illness
prevented him from reporting to his work from 28.4.1999 till 16.8.1999. During
this period of absence he sent several applications supported by medical
certificates and prescriptions to the petitioner praying for grant of leave for
the period of his illness. Tejgaon Industrial Area, Dhaka vs. Md. Abul Kalam
Azad (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 5ADC 991
The impugned letter of termination does
not contain any stigma upon respondent No. 2 and on the face of it is a
termination simpliciter and is well covered by the provision of section 19 of
the Act. The termination was not a sequel to any trade union activity on the
part of the respondent No. 2 nor does he claim that no termination benefit was
not given to him. In this view of the matter, we find merit in the appeal.
Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. vs Chairman (Muhammad Abdur Rouf J) (Civil) 2 ADC
128
Section 25
That by not submitting the grievance by
registered post but submitting it by hand the respondent No. I cannot be held
responsible for not complying with the requirement of law. Bangladesh VS Md.
Esken Mollick (Amirul Kabir Chowdhury J Civil) 2ADC 701
Employment of Labour (Standing Orders)
Act, 1965
25(1)(a)
Submission of the grievance must necessarily be made by registered post, pro- vided of course that there is
material to prove that such grievance in writing has in fact been submitted
within the time as specified. In case of admitted service of grievance petition
within the specified time, the formality of sending the same by registered post
should not hinder the process in substance. Bangladesh Road Transport
Corporation vs Md. Esken Mollick and another (M.Fazlul Karim)(Civil)3ADC 688
Section 25(b)- The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division on consideration of the materials on record held that there is no material to prove that the management was hostile or annoyed for any reason towards the appellant. The order of termination of service appeared from it was a termination simpliciter and the appellant failed to establish that the establishment terminated his service in the garb of dismissal by adducing sufficient material. The Court cannot go behind the order of termination to gather the motive of the order. When there is no expressed words in the impugned order itself which throw a stigma on the employee, the Court would not embark upon a roving enquiry to gather the motive of the order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Md. Shamsul Islam =VS= B.J.M.C & others, [1 LM (AD) 206]
Section 25(c) & (d) Restoration- The Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 is a special law and the Labour Court not being a civil court can not take recourse to and apply the provisions under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of any proceeding before it in terms of the said Order and Rule if the proceeding before it is dismissed for default. But it (Labour Court) can certainly, in a just and appropriate case, interfere with its own order of dismissal for default in following the provisions of the said law in substance to prevent any miscarriage of justice. ..... Crescent Jute Mills Co. Ltd =VS= Chairman, Labour Court, [4 LM (AD) 101]
Against the letter of termination the pe- titioner preferred a grievance petition on 24.02.1996 under section 25(1)(a) of the Employment of Labour (Standing Or- ders) Act, 1965. However, without inquiry into the matter and giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard his grievance petition was rejected on 03.03.1996 under section 19(1) of the said Act stating that the said termination was an act of simple termination having no connection with his trade union activities or the criminal incident of 30.01.1996. S.M. Kamaluddin VS. Chairman, First Labour Court (Muhammad Imman Ali J) (Civil) 9 ADC 255
Section 25(1)(b)
Filed a Complaint Case being No.25 of 1995 in the Divisional Labour Court, Khulna, under section 25(1)(b) of the Employment of Labour (Standing or- ders) Act, 1965 stating, inter-alia, that he was appointed on 16.08.1964 as an Work Charge staff, on 18.05.1986 he was made permanent staff and was con- tinuing as such but he was retired from service on and from 04.06.1994 after completing service for 31 years illegally and arbitrarily without giving benefit of pension and gratuity etc. Bangladesh Water Development vs. The Chairman Divisional Labour Court (Md. Abdul Matin J) (Civil) 7 ADC 83
In this case 306 employees of the TCB have been released on payment of full financial benefits as per rules from their services on the ground that their services were no longer required for the organization and out of 306 employees 245 had already taken their retirement benefits. Md. Abdul Halim Bhuiyan vs. Trading Corporation of Bangladesh (M. M. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 6 ADC 133
