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

Iqbal Hossain and Ors. Vs. Chairman, labour Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (HIGH COURT DIVISION)

Writ Petition Nos. 7476, 7622, 7623, 7624, 7625, 7626 and 7627 of 2010

Decided On: 11.01.2011

Appellants: Iqbal Hossain and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Chairman, labour Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Abdul Awal and M. Moazzam Husain, JJ.

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

JUDGMENT

Abdul Awal, J.

  1. Since a common question of law is involved in this matter, all the seven Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 7476/2010, 7622/2010, 7623/2010, 7624/2010, 7625/2010, 7626/2010 and 7627/2010 are taken up for hearing and disposal by this single judgment.

  2. Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why it impugned the judgment and order dated 22-7-2010 passed by the respondent No. 1, Chairman, labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, in Appeal Case No. 21/2008 heard analogously along with Appeal Case Nos. 22/2008, 23/2008, 24/2008, 25/2008, 26/2008 and 27/2008 vide Annexure-F remanding the Complaint Case Nos. 4/2002, 5/2002, 7/2002, 9/2002, 10/2002, 17/2002 and 20/2002 vide Annexure-A to the 1st labour Court, Dhaka (the respondent No. 2) should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

  3. The fact of the Writ Petition No. 7476 of 2010, in a nut-shell is that the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 20/2002 in the 1st labour Court (respondent No. 2) under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965 impleading the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 alleging, inter-alia, that the petitioner was the permanent worker under the respondent No. 3 effective from 06-09-1987 and during the tenure of the service his designation was Store Hand and he used to draw a salary of Taka 2,937 per month. While he was in service, he was terminated on 07-02-2002 by an oral order communicated to him by a Guard of the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, he was not allowed to enter into the office of the respondent No. 3 and no copy of such termination letter was ever served on him. In the meantime, he became sick and remained as such till 26-7-2002 and on his recovery he went to the Head Office of the respondent No. 3 located at Kawran Bazar on July 27, 2002 when he was asked to report to the accounts department and to collect his dues. Accordingly, the accounts department paid him an account payee cheque for Taka 56,791. On receipt of the aforesaid cheque he found that he was not paid the gratuity amount of Taka 49,193 as per the gratuity rule of the company i.e. respondent No. 3. Then the petitioner sent a grievance petition on 3-8-2002 under registered post, but his grievance was not redressed. Then he filed the Complaint Case No. 20 of 2002.

  4. Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 appeared and contested the case before the respondent No. 2 by filing written statement contending that the petitioner was not entitled to gratuity as the practice had been discontinued and that the case was barred by limitation. The service of the petitioner was terminated on 7-2-2002 and he collected the termination benefit on 27-07-2002, but he sent a grievance petition on 3-8-2002.

  5. Since the facts of the other connected writ petitions are more or less similar, we do not feel it necessary to reproduce the same here.

  6. The respondent No. 2 heard both sides and considering the evidence on record and other facts and circumstances of the case allowed the case by its judgment and order 13-3-2008.

  7. Against the said judgment and order the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an appeal under section 33(6) of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006 before the respondent No. 1. The appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 21 of 2008 and the same was heard analogously with six other appeals. The respondent No. 1 considering the evidence on record remanded all the appeals to the respondent No. 2 by the impugned judgment and order. Hence this writ petition.

  8. Mr. Abdur Razaque Khan, learned Advocate along with Md. Nesar Ahmed and Md. Nurul Huda appealed for the petitioners while none appeared for the respondents.

  9. Mr. Abdur Razaque Khan submits that the appeal cases filed under section 33(6) of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006 cannot be maintained. He submits that the appeals were the products of the judgment and order which was delivered under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965. The judgment and order passed under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965 is not appealable. The judgment and order passed under this section is a final order. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 1 is not sustainable in law.

  10. It appears from the Annexure-A which relates to Complaint Case No. 21 of 2002 that the said complaint case was filed under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965. The judgment and order passed under section 25 of the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965 is a final order. Therefore, the appeals filed under section 33(6) of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006 are misconceived one.

  11. It further appears that the complaint case, were filed before the enactment of Bangladesh labour act, 2006. So, the case filed before the enactment of Bangladesh labour act, 2006 will be guided by the provisions laid down in the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965. Be it mentioned here that section 353(b) of the Bangladesh labour act is a saving clause. This section indicates that the case filed before the enactment of Bangladesh labour Law will be guided by the Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965, as if Employment of labour (Standing Order) act, 1965 has not been repealed.

  12. Considering the position as above we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order has been passed without lawful authority having no legal effect which requires interference by this Court.

In the result, all the Rules are made absolute. There being no order as to costs. The impugned judgment and order dated 22-7-2010 passed by the respondent No. 1, Chairman, labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, in Appeal Case No. 21/2008 heard analogously along with Appeal Case Nos. 22/2008, 23/2008, 24/2008, 25/2008, 26/2008 and 27/2008 vide Annexure-F remanding the Complaint Case Nos. 4/2002, 5/2002, 7/2002, 9/2002, 10/2002, 17/2002 and 20/2002 vide Annexure-A to the 1st labour Court, Dhaka (the respondent No. 2) are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

Send down the LC records at once.