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

Ekramul Hossain (Md.) and Ors. Vs. Chairman, First labour Court, Dhaka and Ors.

Citation: 67 DLR (2015) 313

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (HIGH COURT DIVISION)

Writ Petition No. 9135 of 2011

Decided On: 18.11.2013

Appellants: Ekramul Hossain (Md.) and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Chairman, First labour Court, Dhaka and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Bazlur Rahman and Md. Akram Hossain Chowdhury, JJ.

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Md. Abdur Razaque Khan and Md. Nurul Huda, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Bazlur Rahman, J.

  1. The petitioners claiming as President and members of Narsingdi Zilla Bus-Minibus Sramik Union a registered trade union of workers bearing registration No. Dhaka-4557, obtained this Rule, on 27-10-2011, challenging the proceedings of BLA Case No. 1534 of 2011 brought before the First labour Court, Dhaka by-respondent No. 1 describing him as the General Secretary of same trade union. Respondent No. 2 as first party brought the BLA Case on 11-10-2011 by placing an application under section 213 of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006 (hereinafter to be referred as the act, 2006) impleading the present petitioners as second party praying for a declaration that second party-petitioners had no authority to hold election of the trade union in question to be held on 15-10-2011 stating inter alia that as per article 23 of the constitution of the trade union in question, on a schedule declared by a three members election subcommittee constituted in its general meeting dated 27-7-2010, eight members executive committee for two years was declared unopposed on 27-8-2010 with, amongst other, one Md Mahbubul Alam Nader Bhuiyan as President, second party petitioner Md Ekram Hossain as Vice-President, first party-respondent Md Mozibar Rahman as General Secretary which was communicated on 16-9-2010 to the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, the second party petitioner No. 1 showing him as President of the committee illegally proceeded for the election in question to be held on 15-10-2011.

  2. Immediate after the initiation of the aforesaid BLA case on the same day first party-respondent also prayed for interim order purportedly under section 216(1) (chha) of the act, 2006 restraining the second party-petitioners from holding such election to be held on 15-10-2011.

  3. By order dated 11-10-2011 the Chairman of the First labour Court of Dhaka issued seven days show cause notice upon the second party-petitioners and in the meantime made an interim order directing to maintain status-quo in respect of election to be held on 15-10-2011.

  4. The Second party-petitioners appeared before the labour Court below on 13-10-2011 and filed written objection contending inter alia that first party-respondent Mozibar Rahman being general secretary of earlier executive committee has tendered his resignation on personal ground; and that the unopposed election shown to have declared on 27-8-2010 with Md Mahbubul Alam Nader Bhuiyan, an Advocate of Narsingdi Bar as President was a nullity and outside the scope of law. In the circumstances, pursuant to a resolution taken in the general meeting of the Union held on 19-8-2011 a decision was taken for holding of an election of the union on 15-10-2011 and for the said purpose a three members election sub-committee took all steps, announced election schedule on 19-9-2011, framed Election Rules on 19-9-2011 and notified duly to all relevant authorities. However, in the midst of process suddenly the first party-respondent filed the BLA Case and obtained interim order halting the process of election.

  5. Second party-petitioners also filed an application before the labour court below on 23-10-2011 for dismissing the BLA case on maintainability ground contending, inter alia, that section 213 of the act, 2006 contemplates any proceeding only at the instance of a worker, employer or collective bargaining agent for enforcement of ‘his’ or ‘its’ right in respect of employment, non employment or terms and conditions of employment in relation to each other; the present BLA case touching merit, status or locus standi vis–vis status of office bearer of a registered trade union is outside the ambit and contemplation of law laid down in section 213 of the act, 2006; the first party has no locus standi to bring the case as he resigned in the meantime; further, a labour Court has not been given power of granting any injunction, temporary or otherwise which are available, under the provisions of Specific Relief act and not in the contemplation of any of the provisions of the act, 2006 and, as such, entertaining and/or registering of the BLA case was not legal and without jurisdiction and thus was liable to be dismissed in limine.

  6. The Chairman of the labour Court upon hearing the parties, however, by his order dated 23-10-2011 rejected the petition on maintainability, considering the only ground as to the resignation of the first party respondent and took the view that all the points raised cannot be adjudicated without taking evidence.

  7. The labour Court, however, did not consider the other points raised by the second party.

  8. Being aggrieved, the second party petitioners moved before this Court and obtained the present Rule.

  9. Mr. Abdur Razaque Khan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that since the dispute relating to holding and/or otherwise of an election of the executive committee of a registered trade union is not within the purview of section 213 or any of the provisions of the act, 2006 the labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for the proceeding in question. Mr. Khan further submits that under the provision of section 213 of the act 2006 any collective bargaining agent or worker can come for enforcement of any right granted by any law, award and/or any agreement and, as such, the first party respondent, presuming not conceding him as an office bearer of the trade union in question, cannot bring the proceeding under section 213 of the act, 2006. In support of his contention he cited the cases of Railway Men’s Stores Ltd. vs the Chairman, labour Court Chittagong, reported in 30 DLR (SC) 251; Karnafully Paper Mills Sramik Karmachari Union vs Registrar of Trade Union, reported in 42 DLR 329; Chittagong Port Authority vs Kalipada Dey, reported in 39 DLR 39; T.K. Oil Refinery Vegetable Products (Pvt) Ltd. Sramik League vs T.K. Oil Refinery Vegetable Products (Pvt) Ltd., reported in 42 DLR 13.

  10. Though the Rule has been served upon the respondents but no one came to oppose the same.

  11. From the materials placed and the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioners the moot question is, as appears, whether any dispute relating to the internal affairs of a trade union, in particular election of its office bearer, can be the subject-matter before the labour Court either under section 213 or under any of the provisions of the act, 2006.

  12. The act, 2006 has been codified replacing 25 pieces of legislations, as appeared from section 353 of the act, 2006. The labour Court constituted under section 214 of the act, 2006 has been given jurisdiction and, invested with the power to adjudicate matters placed by the wooers or employers or collective bargaining agent in the following cases:

Section-33(3) Lodging of complaint court by the worker against the decision of the employer in respect of grievance on termination of his employment
Section-132 Application by the worker or his authorized agent for direction on payment” of wages;
Section-147

Application for adjudication of the dispute arising out decision on newspaper wage board award;
Section-166

Settlement of questions as to liability on workmen’s compen- sation;
Section-182

Appeal against refusal of regis- tration of a trade union;
Section-188(4)

Appeal against decision on dis- pute relating to alteration of constitution and changes of office bearer of a trade union;
Section-190(2)

Application by the Director of Labour praying permission to cancel registration of a trade union;
Section-202(21)

Adjudication of election dis- pute relating to determination of collective bargaining agent;
Section-211(5)(6)

Award on prohibition of strike or lock out as referred by the Government;

Adjudication of application by any collective bargaining agent or employer or workman for enforcement of any right guar- anteed or secured by or under any law and any award and/or settlement;
Section-213 Adjudication of application by any collective bargaining agent or employer or workman for enforcement of any right guar- anteed or secured by or under any law and any award and/or settlement;

  1. Besides, the labour Court, by the section 313, has got exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance and trial of the offences enumerated in the act, 2006.

  2. From the above it is apparent that labour Court has not invested with any power to adjudicate matters relating to the internal affairs/in particular dispute relating to election of its office bearers, of a registered trade union and labour Court cannot entertain the same though the dispute relating to an election of the collective bargaining agent can be adjudicated by the labour Court as contemplated by the provisions of section 202 (21) of the act, 2006, mentioned above. There is a distinction between the election of a collective bargaining agent and election for the office bearers of a trade union.

  3. Section 317(4) entrusted the Director of labour with power to oversee and supervise the election of a trade union and in the case of any dispute relating internal affairs of a registered trade union which is civil in nature must be adjudicated by the civil Court, if party aggrieved go there to ventilate the same. From the case cited by Mr. Khan it also apparent that Civil Court has a power or can adjudicate the dispute relating to the internal affairs of a registered trade union and, as such, the persons aggrieved is not remediless. In or about premises we are, of the view that the BLA case brought by the first party respondent before the labour Court purportedly under section 213 of the act, 2006 cannot be maintained and labour Court had no jurisdiction to make any interim order thereon.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute, however, without any order as to costs. BLA Case No. 1534 of 2011 pending before the First labour Court, Dhaka is hereby quashed.