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

Sayeed Ahmed Chowdhury and others Vs. SM Zahidul Islam (Zahid) & anr.

Citation: 63 DLR (2011) 212

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH (HIGH COURT DIVISION)

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 11530 of 2009

Decided On: 15.02.2011

Appellants: Sayeed Ahmed Chowdhury and others Vs. Respondent: SM Zahidul Islam (Zahid) & anr.

Hon’ble Judges/Coram: A.K.M. Asaduzzaman and A.K.M. Zahirul Hoque, JJ.

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

For Respondents/Defendant: Bashir Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General - For the Opposite Party No. 2

JUDGMENT

A.K.M. Asaduzzaman, J.

  1. On an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure this rule was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 96 of 2008 under section 307/310 of the labour act, 2006 now pending in the First labour Court, Dhaka should not be quashed. Facts necessary for disposal of the rule are that one SM Zahidul Islam (Zahid) (opposite party No. 1) filed Criminal Case No. 96 of 2008 under section 307 of the Bangladesh labour Court act, 2006 on 06-03-2006 against the accused petitioner No. 1 Sayeed Ahmed Chowdhury, Country Manager, VF Asia Ltd. and the accused petitioner No. 2 Safiul Alam, Assistant Manager (Administration) Human Resources Division of said VF Asia Ltd. having office at Road No. 82, Holding No. 10/1, Gulshan-2. PS, Gulshan, Dhaka. In the complaint petition the complainant stated that he joined service in the establishment of VF Asia Ltd. On 01-11-1992 in the post Quality Controller, that his last monthly salary was Taka 1,38,000/- and his last post was Assistant Quality Assurance Manager, but according to him he had no Administrative and supervisory powers. That on 29-11-2007 forcibly he was made to sign a resignation letter over which he lodged a GD Entry on 30-11-2007 in Gulshan Police Station; that he was entitled to get termination benefit, compensation and other dues amounting to Taka 27,36,222 and for which he sent claim letter on 2-12-2007 and thereafter he was paid Taka 1,38, 176/- as salary of 1 month. In such situation the complainant filed the instant criminal case under section 307 of the Bangladesh labour act. On examination of the complainant and recording his initial statement the learned labour Court took cognizance of the case.

  2. The accused petitioners thereafter appeared before the Court and got bail from the Court and filed an application under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging them from the impugned criminal proceedings stating inter alia that the present criminal case did not lie and that the complainant as Assistant Quality Assurance Manager exercised managerial, administrative and executive nature of work and he will not come within the ambit of “worker” as defined under section 2(65) of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006.

  3. On hearing the parties and considering the application the learned trial Court rejected the application and framed charge against the petitioners under section 307/310 of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006.

  4. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained the instant rule.

  5. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners on drawing our attention to the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 before the labour Court under section 307 of the labour act submits that the instant case was filed for the dues as claimed by the complainant for Taka 27,36, 222 which was dues to him as termination benefit along with the compensation and other dues, and as such, it was alleged that for non payment of the said money the petitioners committed an offence under section 307 of the labour act, thus when the complainant claim for money in his petition of complaint and filed the case before the labour Court under section 307 of the labour act this is absolutely a Civil Claim for money and there is no scope to grant such relief under the said provision of law, accordingly there is no ingredients of section 307 of the labour act. Accordingly the continuation of the proceedings together with charge framed against the petitioners is illegal, and the Criminal Proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, which is liable to be quashed.

  6. The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 1 although opposed the rule but found it difficult to show us anything that the allegation made in the application before the labour Court at all constitute an offence under section 307/310 of the Bangladesh labour act, 2006.

  7. Heard the learned Advocate of both the sides and perused the documents and relevant provision of law.

  8. On plain reading of the petition of complaint lodged before the labour Court it appears that in paragraphs 4-5 the complainant stated that:-

৪। বাদীর আইনগত পাওনার হিসাব নিম্নরুপঃ-

ক) বাংলাদেশ শ্রম আইন এর ২৬ ধারা মোতাবেক টারমিনেশন বাবদ

নোটিশ পে- ৪ মাস ১,৩৮,০০০/- ৫,৫২,০০০

খ) উক্ত আইনে ক্ষতিপূরণ নিয়োগ

০১-১১-৯২ টারমিনেশন

২৯-১১-২০০৭ = ১৫ বৎসর

১৫ বৎসর ১,৩৮,০০০/- ২০,৭০,০০০

গ) অভোগকৃত ছুটি ৪০ দিনের = ১,৮৪,০০০/- তন্মধ্যে ৬৯,৭৭৮/- টাকা প্রদান করে ২৯-১১-২০০৭ ইং তারিখ বাকী ১,১৪,২২২

মোট=:২৭,৩৬,২২২

(সাতাইশ লক্ষ ছত্রিশ হাজার দুইশত বাইশ টাকা

৫। আসামীগণ শিক্ষিত ব্যাক্তি, তাহারা জানিয়া তাহার আইনগত পাওনা হইতে বঞ্চিত করিবার স্বাক্ষর নিয়া টারমিনেট করিয়াছে। কিন্তু ত উপরোক্ত ২৭,৩৬,২২২/= টাকা বিভিন্ন বার প সময়মত প্রদান না করিয়া আসামীগণ বাংলা ২০০৬ এর ৩০৭ ধারায় শাস্তিযোগ্য অপরাধ করি

  1. Now let us see whether the aforesaid claim of the complainant at all constitute an offence under section 307/310 of the said act.

  2. Section 307 of the labour act runs as follows:

“৩০৭- অন্যান্য অপরাধের দন্ড-কোন ব্যাক্তি এই আইন বা কোন বিধি প্রবিধান বা স্কীমের কোন বিধান লংঘন করিলে বা মানিতে ব্যর্থ হইলে, এবং ইহার জন্য উহাতে অন্য কোন দন্ডের বিধান না থাকিলে, তিনি তিনমাস পর্যন্ত কারাদন্ডে অথবা পাঁচ হাজার টাকা পর্যন্ত অর্থ দন্ডে, অথবা উভয় দন্ডে দন্ডনীয় হইবেন।”

  1. On plain reading of the above provision of law it appears that as per the said provision if anybody fails to comply any order passed under the labour Court then he can only be prosecuted and punished under section 307 of the labour act. Thus as per the above law the prime requirements first is that, there must be an order of the labour Court and a person is found to be disobliged or did not comply the order passed by the labour Court, and then can only be brought to the trial before the labour Court which actually is like a contempt of Court proceeding and can punish under section 307 of the labour act. On plain reading of the petition of complaint as set forth above, we do not find that there was any order of the labour Court which has not been complied with by the petitioners and accordingly can be said committed an offence as stated above under section 307 of the Bangladesh labour act. The petitioner has claimed some dues as due to him in the term of his termination benefit and compensation upon it which is apparently the matter of calculation and is a civil dispute and can well be agitated before the labour Court in different forum under the difficult sections and it is well settled by this time that this is not wise to bring the civil dispute before the Criminal Court in order to put pressure upon the party, and the proceedings liable to be quashed.

  2. In all view as the matter we do not find any reason to continue the criminal proceeding and the instant criminal proceeding since is clearly appears to be abuse of process of the Court which is liable to be quashed. We thus find merits in this rule. In the result the rule is made absolute and the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 96 of 2008 together with the charge framed against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

The order of stay granted earlier is hereby vacated.

Communicate the order once.

Send down the LCR.