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

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development and others vs Ayub Ali and others

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH APPELLATE DIVISION Present:
Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Obaidul Hassan Mr. Justice M. Enayetur Rahim

CIVIL APPEALS NO.84-99 OF 2014 (From the judgments and orders dated 03.03.2010 and 15.03.2011 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petitions No.5228 of 2009, 8276 of 2008, 5520 & 5708 of 2009; 8275 & 8275 of 2008; with Writ Petitions No.2356, 2354, 2355, 3766, 3767, 3768, 6820, 6821, 6822, 5229 of 2009, 8273 of 2008 and 3056 of 2009)

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation, represented by its Chairman - Appellants

-Versus-

Ayub Ali and and others (In all the cases) - Respondents

For the appellants (In all the cases): Mr. Choudhury Sanawar Ali, Advocate,(In all the cases) instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate on-Record.

For the respondents (In all the cases) : Mr. Md. Nesar Ahmed, Advocate, instructed (In all the cases) by Mr. Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate- on-Record.

Date of hearing and judgment: The 31st day of August, 2022.

JUDGMENT

Obaidul Hassan, J.

  1. All the Civil Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as all of those involve common questions of law and similar facts.

  2. All the civil appeals by leave granting order dated 16.02.2014 passed by this Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeals No.868, 869, 870, 871 of 2010 and 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777 and 1778 of 2011 against the judgments and orders dated 03.03.2010 and 15.03.2011 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petitions No.5228 of 2009, 8276 of 2008, 5520 and 5708 of 2009, 8275 of 2008 with Writ Petitions No.2356, 2354, 2355, 3766, 3767, 3768, 6820, 6821, 6822, 5229 of 2009, 8273 of 2008 and 3056 of 2009 making all the Rules absolute.

  3. The writ petitioners filed Writ Petitions being Nos.5228 of 2009 8276 of 2008, 5520 and 5708 of 2009 challenging the order issued under the signature of the writ respondent No.4-appellant No.3, the Assistant General Manager, Wood Seasoning and Furniture Manufacturing Factory, Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation while the another set of writ petitioners filed Writ Petitions No.8275 of 2008, 2356, 2354, 2355, 3766, 3767, 3768, 6820, 6821, 6822, 5229 of 2009 8273 of 2008 and 3056 of 2009 challenging the order issued under the signature of the writ respondent No.4, the Assistant General Manager, Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation, Lamber Processing Complex and Saw Mills Unit, retiring all the writ petitioners from service on the attainment of 57 years of age. On filing the aforesaid writ petitions Rules were issued by the High Court Division.

  4. In all the writ petitions the case of the respective writ petitioners were, in brief, that they were appointed as workers in different enterprises under Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation, the appellant No.1 and subsequently they had been absorbed in the service permanently. The Public Corporation (Management Co-ordination) Ordinance, 1986 (shortly the Ordinance, 1986) governs that the service of the writ petitioners and according to Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986, their retiring age is 60 years, but they had been given retirement at the age of 57 years in violation of the said provisions of law. The Ordinance, 1986 has neither been repealed nor amended and as such Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986 is still in force. As per provision of Section 3 of the Ordinance, 1986 the provisions laid down therein and the regulations made there under shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force and as such, the provision of Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986 shall prevail over the provisions of Section 28 of বাংলাদেশ শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ (Shortly শ্রম আইন,২০০৬) In the writ petitions it was further contended that the respective impugned order retiring the concerned writ petitioner from service at the age of 57 years was illegal and was issued without lawful authority as they are entitled to remain in services up to 60 years of age in view of the provisions of Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986.

  5. The writ respondents No.2, 3 and 4-appellants contested the Rules by filing affidavit-in-opposition contending, inter alia, that the writ petitioners being workers, would be guided by the provisions of Section 28 শ্রম আইন,২০০৬. The Ordinance, 1986 will not be applicable in the case of the writ petitioners and শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ being the parent law shall prevail over the provisions of Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986 and as such the impugned orders retiring the respective writ petitioner from service at the age of 57 years were quite lawful. The writ respondents also contended that the writ petitioners being workers, proper forum to redress their grievances, if any, was the Labour Court after addressing their grievances under Section 33 of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬, and as such, the writ petitions were not maintainable. Writ Petitions No.5228 of 2009, 8276 of 2008, 5520 of 2009 and 5708 of 2009 were heard by a Division Bench of the High Court Division and Writ Petitions No.8275 of 2008, 2356, 2354, 2355, 3766, 3767, 3768, 6820, 6821, 6822, 5229 of 2009 8273 of 2008 and 3056 of 2009 were heard by another Division Bench of the High Court Division. Both the Division Benches by separate judgments and orders made all the Rules absolute on 03.03.2010 and 15.03.2011 declaring the respective impugned order retiring the concerned writ petitioner from service at the age of 57 years, to have been passed without lawful authority and was of no legal effect.

  6. Having been aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments and orders dated 03.03.2010 and 15.03.2011 passed by the High Court Division, the writ respondents No.2,3,4-appellants preferred Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal No.868-871 of 2010, 1767-1778 of 2011 before this Division and this Division was pleased to grant leave on 16.02.2014 to consider the following grounds:

a. Whether the respective writ petition was maintainable, as the respective respondent-writ petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution without exhausting the other efficacious remedy, as provided in Section 33 of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬

b. Whether the respective writ petitioner being worker, he could avail the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution against his retirement on the plea of attainment of 57 years of age or the Labour Court was the proper forum for ventilating the grievance after complying with the provisions of Section 33 of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬

  1. Mr. Choudhury Sanawar Ali, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the writ petitioners-respondents being worker under শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ their age of retirement from service is 57 years as per Section 28 of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬. Assailing the judgments and orders of the High Court Division the learned Counsel contends next that the writ petitions were not maintainable since the writ petitioners had to approach the Labour Court against orders retiring them from service. The learned Counsel argues further that শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ will prevail over the Ordinance, 1986 since the শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ has been enacted later. In opposition, Mr. Nesar Ahmed, the learned Counsel for the respondents argues that the judgments and orders passed by the High Court Division are based on proper appreciation of facts and law of the cases and as such the same are not liable to be interfered with. The learned Counsel contends next that the provisions of the Ordinance, 1986 are applicable in respect of the age of retirement of the writ petitioners-respondents. The learned Counsel finally submits that the grievance against retirement has not been dealt with in Section 33 of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ and as such the writ petitions were maintainable.
  2. At the outset, it appears from the record that the core contention between the parties hinges on two-fold issues. Firstly, whether the writ petitioners being workers the writ petitions weremaintainable. Secondly, whether শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ being the latest law shall prevail over the Ordinance, 1986 and as such their age of retirement is 57 years.
  3. It is admitted that the writ petitioners-respondents are workers under Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation (shortly Corporation). The preamble to the Ordinance, 1986 is as follows:

“Whereas it is expedient to provide for the co-ordination of management of the affairs and business of certain public corporations and for matters connected therewith.”

  1. Thus, it is apparent that Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation is regulated by the Ordinance, 1986 and the writ petitioners-respondents are treated as workers as contemplated in Section 2(e) of the Ordinance, 1986. Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986 provides for the provisions regarding the age of retirement of a worker. Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986 is as follows:

“14A. Retirement of worker, etc.-(1) A worker of an enterprise shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the terms and conditions of his employment in any contract, rule, regulation, bye-law or other instrument, retire from employment on the completion of the sixtieth year of his age;

Provided that a worker who has completed the sixtieth year of his age on or before the date of commencement of the Public Corporations (Management Co-ordination) (Amendment) Act, 1994 (XVII of 1994) shall cease to be in the employment of the enterprise on such commencement.”
(underlines supplied)

  1. It is palpably clear, thus, that the age of retirement of a worker employed under a public corporation is 60 years. Accordingly, the age of retirement of the writ petitioners-respondents was supposed to be 60 years. But in the cases in hand the complications have cropped up when the writ respondents-appellants issued orders on various dates retiring the writ petitioners from service as they have completed 57 years of service. The writ respondents while passing the impugned orders relied on Section 28 of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ according to which the age of retirement of a worker was 57 years. It is advantageous to extract Section of শ্রম আইন,২০০৬ in the following:

“২৮৷ (১) এ অধ্যায়ের অন্যত্র যাহা কিছুই উল্লেখ থাকুক না কেন, কোন প্রতিষ্ঠানে নিয়োজিত কোন শ্রমিকের বয়স ৫৭ (সাতান্ন) বৎসর পূর্ণ হইলে তিনি চাকুরী হইতে স্বাভাবিক অবসর গ্রহণ করিবেন।
(২) এ ধারার উদ্দেশ্যে বয়স যাচাইয়ের ক্ষেত্রে সংশ্লিষ্ট শ্রমিকের সার্ভিস বইয়ে লিপিবদ্ধ জন্ম তারিখ উপযুক্ত প্রমাণ হিসাবে গণ্য হইবে।”

Thus, according to Section 28 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ the age of retirement is 57 years. However, the age of retirement of a worker has been amended to be 60 years in the year 2010. It is to be noted impugned orders by the writ respondents had been issued prior to amendment to Section 28 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ regarding the age of retirement of worker. In the said backdrop, the moot question arises whether the provisions of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Ordinance, 1986. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the appellants contends that শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ will prevail over the Ordinance, 1986 inasmuch as শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ was enacted later.

  1. On going through Section 353 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ it is evident that as many as 25 laws have been repealed by the enactment of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬, but the Ordinance, 1986 has not been repealed. In the given circumstances, there arises a paradoxical situation as to whether the provisions of either of law will prevail over other.

  2. It has been held by this Division in the case of Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration and Production Company Limited (BAPEX) and another vs. Md. Hasan Ali and others, reported in 11 ADC(2014)300 and in the case of Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation (BSFIC) vs. Md. Tajul Islam and others, reported in 22 BLC(AD)(2017)308 that any Act/Rule that provides more favourable and better facilities to the workers than those of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬, then the more favourable and better one will be applicable to them in supersession of the provisions of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬

  3. In view of the above, proposition of law, regarding the cases in hand, our considered view is that the provisions of the Ordinance, 1986 will prevail over those of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ so far as it relates to the age of retirement. Therefore, the age of retirement from service of the writ petitioners-respondents is 60 years as envisaged under Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986.

  4. The learned Counsel for the appellants assailing the judgments and orders of the High Court Division contends that the writ petitioners-respondents being workers the proper forum to agitate their grievances against the impugned orders of retirement was Labour Court after exhausting the procedure laid down in Section 33 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ and as such the writ petitions were not maintainable. For convenience Section 33 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ is extracted hereunder:

“৩৩৷ (১) লে-অফ, ছাঁটাই, ডিসচার্জ, বরখাস্ত, অপসারণ অথবা অন্য যে কোন কারণে চাকুরীর অবসান হইয়াছে এরূপ শ্রমিকসহ যে কোন শ্রমিকের, এই অধ্যায়ের অধীন কোন বিষয় সম্পর্কে যদি কোন অভিযোগ থাকে এবং যদি তিনি তৎসম্পর্কে এই ধারার অধীন প্রতিকার পাইতে ইচ্ছুক হন তাহা হইলে তিনি, অভিযোগের কারণ অবহিত হওয়ার তারিখ হইতে ত্রিশ দিনের মধ্যে অভিযোগটি লিখিত আকারে রেজিস্ট্রি ডাকযোগে মালিকের নিকট প্রেরণ করিবেনঃ
তবে শর্ত থাকে যে, যদি নিয়োগকারী কর্তৃপক্ষ অভিযোগটি সরাসরি গ্রহণ করিয়া লিখিতভাবে প্রাপ্তি স্বীকার করেন, সেই ক্ষেত্রে উক্ত অভিযোগটি রেজিস্ট্রি ডাকযোগে না পাঠাইলেও চলিবে।
(২) মালিক অভিযোগ প্রাপ্তির ত্রিশ দিনের মধ্যে অভিযোগ সম্পর্কে তদন্ত করিবেন এবং সংশ্লিষ্ট শ্রমিককে শুনানীর সুযোগ দিয়া তৎসম্পর্কে তাহার সিদ্ধান্ত লিখিতভাবে শ্রমিককে জানাইবেন। (৩) যদি মালিক উপ-ধারা (২) এর অধীন কোন সিদ্ধান্ত দিতে ব্যর্থ হন, অথবা সংশ্লিষ্ট শ্রমিক যদি উক্তরূপ সিদ্ধান্তে অসন্তষ্ট হন, তাহা হইলে তিনি উপ-ধারা (২) এ উল্লিখিত সময় অতিক্রান্ত হওয়ার তারিখ হইতে ত্রিশ দিনের মধ্যে অথবা, ক্ষেত্রমত, মালিকের সিদ্ধান্তের তারিখ হইতে ত্রিশ দিনের মধ্যে শ্রম আদালতে লিখিতভাবে অভিযোগ পেশ করিতে পারিবেনা"

  1. It appears from the above that Section 33 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ does not provide for any provision for agitating grievances against the order of retirement. Therefore, regarding the cases in hand, our considered opinion is that the grievances arose out of age of retirement does not come within the mischief of Section 33 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ and as such we find that the writ petitions were quite maintainable.

  2. From the foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the High Court Division on proper appreciation of law and facts made the Rules absolute by judgments and orders dated 03.03.2010 and 15.03.2011 and we find no infirmity or perversion in the said judgments and orders and as such it requires no interference with the same by this Division.

Accordingly, these Civil Appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.
C.J.