↓Skip to main content
Labour Laws
  1. Case Law/

Bangladesh Film Development Corporation Vs. The Chairman, First labour Court, Dhaka and Ors.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (APPELLATE DIVISION)

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1054-59 of 2007

Decided On: 03.01.2008

Appellants: Bangladesh Film Development Corporation Vs. Respondent: The Chairman, First labour Court, Dhaka and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Md. Ruhul Amin, C.J., M.M. Ruhul Amin and Md. Abdul Matin, JJ.

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Saidur Rahman, Advocate-on-record

JUDGMENT

Md. Ruhul Amin, C.J.

  1. These petitions for leave to appeal have been filed against the common judgment dated 26.2.2007 in Writ Petition Nos. 746, 747, 748, 749, 750 and 751 of 2006. The writ petitions were filed impugning the judgment and order dated December 29, 2005 of the 1st labour Court, Dhaka in Complaint Case Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 of 2002.

  2. The complaint cases were filed under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Orders) act, 1965.

  3. As it appears the 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. The contentions of the petitioners in the complaint cases were denied by the employer i.e. petitioner herein (Bangladesh Film Development Corporation) and it was asserted that the petitioners in the complaint cases were dismissed from the service upon due compliance of the procedure as well as upon giving due opportunities for defending themselves.

  4. The labour Court on consideration of the materials brought on record by the parties upon arriving at the finding that enquiry conducted against the petitioners in the complaint cases was not in accordance with law and the petitioners of the complaint cases were not given proper opportunity to defend themselves, that the opposite party in the complaint cases i.e. petitioner herein could not place any paper before the Court to show that the enquiry was conducted according to law, that the opposite party in the complaint cases could not establish, that the case of the petitioners in the complaint cases is governed by the provisions of Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1985 nor could establish, that the petitioners in the complaint cases were not workers or could not establish, that the complainants in the complaint cases were entrusted with the duty of collection of VAT and deposit thereof, that the opposite party in the complaint cases, i.e. petitioner herein is not a Government organization, rather it is a corporation which has been established for carrying on commercial purpose and as such is a commercial establishment under the Employment of labour (Standing Orders) act, 1965, that the labour Court finally held

“আরো প্রতীয়মান হয় যে, প্রথম পক্ষের বিরুদ্ধে আনীত অভিযোগ যথাযথভাবে প্রমান করিতে সক্ষম না হওয়ায় ও তদন্ত -কার্যক্রম সঠিক ও আইনানুগভাবে অনুষ্ঠিত না হওয়ায় দ্বিতীয় পক্ষ বিগত ২২-৮-২০০২ ইং তারিখে প্রথম পক্ষকে চাকুরী থেকে অপসারনের যে আদেশ দিয়াছে তাহা বাতিলযোগ্য”।

  1. As stated hereinabove against the order of the labour court the writ petitions were filed by the petitioner herein i.e. Bangladesh Film Development Corporation reiterating the contentions made earlier and before the High Court Division in support of the Rule obtained in the writ petitions reiterated the same contentions.

  2. The High Court Division noticed the decision reported in 49 DLR (1997) 396 wherein the petitioner herein was a party. In the said reported case it was observed “The FDC may have its own Service Regulations but it cannot beyond the ambit of Employment of labour (SO) act. A Service Regulations even if a statutory one can not exclude or supersede, the Employment of labour (SO) act. Therefore, if any provision of the Service Regulations of the FDC is less favourable to the express provision of the Standing Orders act that provision, in our view, is void ab initio”.

  3. On our query the learned Advocate for the petitioner herein it was submitted that the judgment in the aforementioned reported case was not challenged before the higher Court. Thus it comes to that the decision in the aforesaid case was accepted by the petitioner herein. The High Court Division observed that the facts of the reported case as mentioned above and the facts of the case “in hand are identical”.

  4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner felt difficulty to take exception to the aforesaid observation of the High Court Division. The High Court Division finally observed that “though the FDC have its own Service Regulations, it cannot be beyond the ambit of the Employment of labour (Standing Orders) act, 1965 and that a Service Regulations even if a statutory one can not exclude or supersede the Employment of labour (Standing Orders) act, 1965” and thereupon held that the labour Court did not commit any error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the petitioners in the complaint cases.

  5. We have seen from the judgment of the labour Court that in dispensing with the service of the petitioners in the complaint cases the employer did not follow the minimum rule of offering opportunity to the workers, while dismissed or removed, in defending themselves. It also appears from the judgment of the labour Court that the enquiry if any said to have held as against the allegation made in respect of the petitioners in the complaint cases was derogation of the procedure prescribed by the Rules of the Corporation and by the Employment of labour (Standing Orders) act, 1965.

  6. In the background of the aforesaid discussion we find no merit in the petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed on condonation of delay.