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

Kazi Rokanuddin Ahmed and Ors. Vs. Chairman, 1st labour Court and Ors.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (HIGH COURT DIVISION)

Writ Petition No. 911 of 2011

Decided On: 31.03.2011

Appellants: Kazi Rokanuddin Ahmed and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Chairman, 1st labour Court and Ors.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Abdul Awal and S.M. Emdadul Hoque, JJ.

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Syed Mayenul Hoque and Md. Aminul Hoque, Advocates

JUDGMENT

S.M. Emdadul Hoque, J.

  1. This Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the proceedings of Bangladesh labour Law (Criminal) Case No. 370 of 2010 under section 307 and 310 of the Bangladesh labour Law, 2000 now pending before the respondent No. 1, should not be declared unlawful, mala fide, out of jurisdiction and is of no legal effect.

  2. Facts leading to this case, in short, are that the respondent No. 2 was an employee under the petitioners-Company. He, as complainant, filed BLL (Criminal) Case No. 370 of 2010 before the respondent No. 1 under section 307 and 310 of the Bangladesh labour Law, 2006 stating, inter-alia, that the respondent No. 2 was appointed as an electrician in the Jai Jai Din Printers Limited on 26-11-2005 and joined the post on the same day having ID No. 179 and his total monthly salary was Taka 6,875 among which basic pay was of Taka 5,135 only and that for grudge he was verbally terminated on 10-10-2010 without prior notice. The complainant is entitled to get termination benefits of Taka 1,91,810 but he was not paid so. The complainant approached the petitioners company through legal notice by a Legal Aid Organization namely BLAST on 23-03-2010 and 05-04-2010 requesting them to pay his due wages but of no avail. The complainant was constrained to file the above mentioned case.

  3. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice on 20-5-2010 upon the petitioners as to why a criminal proceeding should not be proceeded with against them under sections 307 and 310 of the Bangladesh labour Law, 2006.

  4. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioners appeared before the respondent No. 1 on 04-08-2010 and filed written objection on 14-12-2010 denying the material allegations made against them.

  5. The respondent No. 1 on perusal of the records, including written objection and other documents took cognizance of the case and issued summons against the petitioners on 28-12-2010.

  6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the petitioners moved this Court under Article 102 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule.

  7. Mr. Syed Moyeenul Hoque, learned Advocate appeared along with Mr. Md. Aminul Hoque, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners while Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

  8. Mr. Moyeenul Hoque submits that the initiation of the criminal proceeding under sections 307 and 310 of the Bangladesh labour Law, 2006 against the petitioners without exhausting the mandatory provision of section 33 of the said Law is illegal and without jurisdiction.

  9. Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam Khan, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioners being fugitive cannot file this writ petition which is not tenable in the eye of law. He further submits that section 307 of the Bangladesh labour Law, 2006 is an independent provision of law for initiating a criminal proceeding against the employer. He further submits that sub-section (4) of section 33 is the provision for instituting criminal proceeding directly under section 307 of the said law. The respondent No. 2 claimed his termination benefits to the petitioners and thereafter, gave notices through a Legal Aid Organization, namely BLAST to the petitioners for his termination benefits but the petitioners did not pay heed to it. Therefore, the petitioners committed criminal offence under the labour Laws. The institution of criminal proceeding under section 307 of the Bangladesh labour Law, 2006 against the petitioners has rightly been proceed with. Thus, the Rule is liable to be discharged.

  10. We have heard the learned Advocates of both the sides, perused the writ petition, the impugned order and the annexures thereof.

  11. The pertinent question in this case is whether a criminal case under section 307 of the labour Law, 2006, can be initiated without exhausting the provisions available in the Bangladesh labour Law, 2006.

  12. It appears that the respondent No. 2 was terminated on 10-10-2010 without prior notice and against the termination the respondent No. 2 did not file grievance notice as required under section 33 of Bangladesh labour Law. Accordingly to section 33, the respondent No. 2 ought to have served grievance petition to the petitioners within 30 days from the date of cause of action but the respondent did not do so.

  13. The extract of section 33 is quoted below:

“33 (1) লে-অফ, ছাঁটাই, ডিসচার্জ, বরখাস্ত, অপসারণ অথবা অন্য যে কোন কারণে চাকুরীর অবসান হইয়াছে এররূপ 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 পেশ 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 পনের 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 অসন্তুষ্ট 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 পারিবেন।

(৪) শ্রম আদালত অভিযোগ প্রাপ্তির পর উত্তর পক্ষকে নোটিশ প্রদান করিয়া অভিযোগটি সম্পর্কে তাহাদের বক্তব্যশ্রবণ করিবে এবং উহার বিবেচনায় মামলার অবসথাধীনে যেরুপ আদশ দেওয়া ন্যায় সংগত সেরুপ আদেশ প্রদান করিবে।

(৫)………

(৬)………

(৭)…….

(৮)…….

(৯)………..

  1. However, it appears that the 2 notices dated 23-03-2010 and 05-04-2010 have been served upon the petitioners through a Legal Aid Organization namely BLAST. These two notices cannot be taken to be the grievance notices. Law says that the worker concerned shall submit his grievance to the petitioners.

  2. The filing of BLL (Criminal) Case No. 370 of 2010 under sections 307 and 310 of Bangladesh labour Law, 2006 is a misconception of law. Section 307 prescribed the quantum of punishment for breach of the provision of Bangladesh labour Law where no punishment is prescribed by any other provision of law. Whereas section 310 provides if any employer is punished for the breach of any law, rule, regulation or the scheme of the law the Court by an order in writing can enhance punishment as additional punishment for removing the cause for which the offence is committed on the basis of an application.

  3. The instant case does not fall under the category of either section 307 or section 310 of Bangladesh labour Law. So, the filing of BLL (Criminal) Case No. 370 of 2010 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.

  4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above it is our considered view that the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners under sections 307 and 310 Bangladesh labour Law, 2006 is illegal and the same should be declared to have been made without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect. We find merits in the Rule.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute, however, without any order as to cost. The proceedings of Bangladesh labour Law (Criminal) Case No. 370 of 2010 is hereby declared unlawful, mala fide, out of jurisdiction and is of no legal effect.