The Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXIII of 1969)
Section 2 (XXVIII, 9, 22 (5) (a)
Whether a person is a worker or not
depends upon, the definition in section 2. (XXVIII) of the Ordinance vis-a-vis
the terms of the agreement under which they are employed. No general proposition
can be laid down to apply in all cases of workers working for an establishment
or industrial organization. The words "directly or through a contractor'
occurring in the definition mean that the employment may be by the management
directly or through a contractor. In either case there has to be a contract of
employment between the management and the person employed. Karnaphuli PMWU vs
KPM Employees Union (Bimalendu Bikash Roy Choudhury J)(Civil) 2ADC 300
The Industrial Relations Ordinance,
(Ordinance XXIII of 1969)
Section 7(1)(2), 22
If it is found desirable by the
authority that in view of the special nature of services rendered by its
employees the organisational set-up of trade unions of the Biman or any other
organization containing similar professional groups should receive special
consideration so as to meet their special situations, then the authority may
consider whether. consistent with the constitutional provisions and the
statute, their special needs in respect of trade union matters can be met by an
appropriate legislation. In the meanwhile all existing arguments between any of
the appellant unions and the Biman, shall remain operative for the duration of
the respective agreements. Secretary of Aircraft Engineers etc.(4) vs The
Registrar of Trade Unions &ors (4) (Mustafa Kamal J (Civil) 2ADC 120
The Industrial Relations Ordinance, (XXII of 1969)
Section 7(2), 7A(1)(b), 10(2), 11 19(2)
Trade Union does not cease to exist due to retrenchment of its workers or the workers retain the membership of their union and it also appears the provisions of section 7A(1) (b) of IRO do not pro- vide so. Standard Match Factory Ltd vs Chairman, First Labour Court, (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil) 1ADC 558
The Industrial Relations Ordinance,
1969
Section 27A, 39D
By reducing the maximum limit of
working hours to 38½ hours and 44%2 hours in a week in place of 48 hours
through a settlement, arrived at between the Management and the CBA of the
workers, the clerical staff/worker cannot and does not automatically get
overtime allowance at double the ordinary rate of wages for working beyond 58½
hours in a week, because the same is not specifically provided for either in
the said settlement or in any law or award. The General Manager vs The
Chairman, Labour Court (Mustafa Kamal J)(Civil) 3 ADC 602
Industrial Relation Ordinance,
1969
Section 34
Petition for cancellation of the said
order of transfer, that during the pendency of the said petition, the
petitioner issued a release letter of the respondent on 22-01-1979 and
thereafter on 22-12- 1979 the petitioner illegally stopped the subsistence
allowance of the respondent No.1 from the date of issuing of the said release
letter and also stopped paying wages to the respondent No.2 till 11-05- 1988.
Bangladesh Agriculture Development Corporation vs. Zinnatul Hossain (Syed J. R
Mudassir Husain CJ) (Civil) 5 ADC 872
The Industrial Relations
Ordinance, 1969
Section 34
Agrabad Hotel and Restaurant do not
fall within the category of industrial undertaking as per the Scheme set out in
the schedule of the Companies Profits (Workers Participation) Act, 1968 and as
such the appellant company was not liable to establish a Workers Participation
Fund and Workers Welfare Fund as demanded by the respondent workers.
Section 34 of the Industrial Relations
Ordinance, 1969 and directing to implement the scheme under the Companies
Profits (Workers Participation) Act, 1968 Hotel Agrabad Ltd. Chittagong,
represented by its Managing Director vs. The Chairman, First Labour Court,
Katungonj (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 4ADC 231
