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

Coats Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Secretary, Ministry of labour and Employment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (HIGH COURT DIVISION)

Writ Petition No. 7144 of 2005

Decided On: 13.04.2006

Appellants: Coats Bangladesh Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Secretary, Ministry of labour and Employment

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Syed Muhammad Dastagir Husain and Mamnoon Rahman, JJ.

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Tafailur Rahman, Advocate

For Respondents/Defendant: Mahbubul Hoque, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Syed Muhammad Dastagir Husain, J.

  1. At the time of pronouncement of the judgment it appears that the case is not made ready. However, the respondent No. 4 is the contesting party and he appeared by filing power therefore, the case is ready for hearing. There was an order for calling the record, at the moment it is not necessary. Thereafter, the matter was taken up and delivered the judgment.

  2. Rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent No. 2 shall not be directed for conducting an enquiry for ascertaining the legality or otherwise of the composition and locus standi of the Executive Committee of the respondent No. 4 Coats Bangladesh Ltd. Employees Union (Registration No. 1579) in terms of section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with section 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 for the purpose of proceeding with charter of demands or participation in any conciliation proceedings.

  3. The petitioners Coats Bangladesh Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies act, 1994 having its registered head office at Dhaka and factory at Chittagong. The petitioner company has been operating in Bangladesh since 1989 as an associate of the United Kingdom-based multinational Coats Ltd. and carrying on business as a leading manufacturer and supplier of industrial sewing thread to the readymade garments, manufacturing, exporting over the years and invested in excess of Taka one billion in the enterprise and created employment opportunity for about 800 persons directly. The company has gained world-wide reputation in the local and international markets by supplying of full range of industrial sewing thread including staple spun polyester, trilobal polyester and polyester cores spun and other special types of thread as requirement of the customers. The petitioner company has also been coveted with DHL, honoured with Daily Star Bangladesh Award in 2003 for bringing corporate global standards to Bangladesh. The petitioner company having a trade union of employees and workers is functioning in the name and style of Coats Bangladesh Ltd. Employees Union, respondent No. 4 and obtained registration from the office of the Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh under the Provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, having its own constitution. It has been stated that three workers namely, Md. Nizamuddin, Abdul Hashem and Md. Danesh were dismissed from service on 11-11-2004 and these three workers have filed three complaint cases under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Orders) act, 1965 before the First labour Court, Chittagong and the cases are pending. The respondent No. 4 Union, time to time placed charter of demands before the petitioner and those ended through settlement after negotiations. The respondent No. 4 Union on 1-4-2005 placed a 16-point charter of demands under section 6(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the petitioner for bipartite negotiation under the signature of its President only and the Management of the petitioner company on receipt of the said charter of demands arranged series of meetings and talked with union representatives and it was pointed out that the Union Executive Body was not properly constituted and the said matter should first be resolved. The said Executive Committee of the respondent No. 4 Trade Union is not composed of duly elected persons. Amongst 16 members of the Executive Committee of the respondent No. 4 Union three persons are dismissed personnel from service-Md Nizamuddin, Abdul Hashem and Md. Danesh and they are ineligible persons to remain in the Executive Committee and or members of the Union under section 7A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Another set of 3 persons of the Executive Committee namely (1) Mesbahuddin Bahadur (2) Mohammad Iqbal and (3) Prodip Kumar Nath, Joint General Secretary were lawfully elected in the election, but they were removed from their respective post on 4-3-2005 and they have challenged by instituting Other Class Suit before the Assistant Judge, 3rd Court Sadar, Chittagong. In place of 3 removed workers 3 persons were in the Executive Committee and the Registrar of Trade Unions was intimated by the respondent No. 4 about the co-option of 3 persons in the Executive Committee. The respondent No. 4 trade union has not gone for any co-option or any election for filling up the vacant posts of 3 dismissed workers who are not eligible to carry on or participate in trade union activities. The respondent No. 3 acting on behalf of respondent No. 2 issued letter dated 6-9-2005 to the petitioner inviting the petitioner to participate in the conciliation meeting on 8-9-2005 over the charter of demands of the respondent No. 4 Union. The petitioner company informed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the executive body was not a duly constituted-one. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instead of holding any inquiry on the same, issued further letter dated 12-9-2005 asking the petitioner to attend conciliation meeting on 13-9-2005. The petitioner on receipt of the said letter again sent a representation on 12-9-2005 to the respondent No. 3 reiterating the fact that the Executive Committee was not properly constituted and then again requested to hold an enquiry as to the formation of the Executive Committee of the Union and its eligibility to proceed with and to participate in any conciliation proceeding. Since the Executive Committee is running with incompetent members in violation of section 7-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the petitioner served demand of justice notice but there was no reply by the respondents. The petitioner under compelling circumstances moved this application and obtained the present Rule.

  4. Mr. Tufailur Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that three persons were dismissed from service and they are still in the committee which is in violation of section 7A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It imposes specific bar on dismissed employees to remain in any sort of trade union activities either as office-bearers or as members of a trade union and they are ineligible persons and no trade union executive committee composed of unauthorised persons can place charter of demands, negotiate on the same and participate in conciliation meetings. In spite or demand made by the petitioner to hold an enquiry, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not considering the same and it is violation of the requirements of section 7A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977. Under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 it is the lawful duty of the Registrar of Trade Unions to examine and take action for any infringement of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but in spite of demands made by the petitioner the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are also ex-officio Registrar of Trade Unions, have not been paying any heed to the same in holding inquiry or legal competence of the respondent No. 4 Union to proceed with any charter of demands or participate in any conciliation proceeding, the petitioner company is faced with illegal and unauthorised actions on the part of an improperly constituted Executive Committee of respondent No. 4 Trade Union and it is an infringement of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Further, he has referred 2003 BLD 469 : 56 DLR 438 wherein it has been stated that a dismissed member cannot be either an officer or member of the Trade Union. Therefore, it is the duty of the respondent to inquire and to take appropriate action as per section 13 of the Ordinance. He has also referred Article 11 of the Constitution of the Trade Union that the committee will be constitute with 16 members who are qualified to contest in the said election. Since 3 of the workers who were dismissed are functioning as evidenced by Annexure-14 filed in affidavit-in-opposition the constitution of the Trade Union is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the Registrar has the ample power to investigate and report to the Court of such violation.

  5. Mr. Mahbubul Hoque, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, by filing affidavit-in-opposition contested the Rule and submits, that the dismissed and removed workers are not participating in any proceeding. The petitioner never raised this question before any proceeding until the conciliation was taken up on 8-8-2005 under section 27(Ka) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. There were as many as 9 meetings and in those meetings, no where the question as to formation of the committee was raised. Further, he submits that even if the workers were dismissed or removed, the committee cannot be declared as invalid committee because of such 3 dismissed workers. The Registrar has no power to certify that the committee is invalid and moreover, such matter is still pending in the civil Court. By referring 1 ADC 195 he submits that there is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for obtaining a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Unions as to the genuineness of any Executive Committee of Trade Union and Registrar of Trade Unions has no authority under the law to declare a committee to be illegal and to certify another committee to be a valid one.

  6. Heard the learned Advocates of both the parties. It appears that the three office bearers of the Executive Committee were removed and one of them named Nizamuddin is participating in the Trade Union as evidenced as per Annexure-14 filed in affidavit-in-opposition. Since he is a dismissed worker he is disqualified to be officer or member an of Trade Union under section 7A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He cannot participate in any of the committees. His removal from the committee is a question which cannot be inquired by the Registrar under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977. Admittedly, the Registrar has no power to cancel any Trade Union or to issue certificate but he can lodge complaints with the labour Court as per section 13(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and unless and until he obtained the permission from the labour Court, the Registrar cannot cancel the Registration of the Trade Union. In this instant case, mere direction was sought for conducting an enquiry for ascertaining the legality or otherwise of the composition and locus standi of the Executive Committee of the respondent No. 4 Coats Bangladesh Ltd. and for taking action as per terms of section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977. Therefore, we find substance in this Rule. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to conduct an enquiry for taking necessary steps as per section 13 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are further directed to decide the matter within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order as prayed for by the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 4.