BEF Annual Report-2010.ai

Ms. Rokia A. Rahman

President

Mr. Akhtar Ahmed Mr. M. Azizul Huq Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Mrs. Sabrina IslamMrs. Rupali Chowdhury

Mr. Salahuddin Kasem

KhanMrs. Rokeya Quader Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha Ms. Luna ShamsuddohaMr. A.S.M. Mainuddin

Monem

Mr. Ahmed Hossain

Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin Mr. Farooq Ahmed

Secretary-General

Mrs. Sonia Bashir Kabir Dr. Muhammad Abdul

Moyeen

Mr. Kaihan N. RahmanMr. Ardashir Kabir

Mr.Muhammad A (Rumee) Ali

Vice-President

COMMITTEE AND OFFICE-BEARERS

AS ON 31ST DECEMBER 2010

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING:

Proceedings of the AGM 1

ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST DECEMBER 2010 9

Membership 14

Managing Committee 14

Sub-Committees 17

Secretariat 21

Participation in NICC/other Internationa Organisation's Training Programmes 22

Participation in Seminar/Workshop/Symposiums and other National /International Affairs 24

Representations at various International Seminars/Workshops/Conferences 25

Bangladesh Employers' Federation -- International Labour Organization (ILO) Joint Programmes 26

Representatives on various Committees/Bodies 30

Representatives on the Labour Courts 32

Affiliation with World Bodies 32

IMPORTANT COURT CASES ON LABOUR MATTERS 33

STATISTICS:

Distribution of Population by Economic Activities 77

Population aged 15 years and above by major Industry 78

Distribution of employed person aged 15 years and above by employment status, residence and sex 79

Employment Indices of Industrial Workers in Selected Industries 80

Productivity Indices of Industrial Workers in Selected Industries 81

Average Daily Wage Rate of Construction Labour in Principal Towns 82

Average Wage Rate for Industrial Workers in Bangladesh 83

Wage Rate Indices by Major Sectors in Bangladesh 84

Consumer Price Index: National 84

Consumer Price Index: All Rural 85

Consumer Price Index: All Urban 85

Annual Report-2010

1

Annual Report-2010

PROCEEDINGS

OF

THE THIRTEENTH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

OF

BANGLADESH EMPLOYERS’ FEDERATION

held in the Conference Hall of the “Chamber Building”, 122-124, Motijheel CA, Dhaka -1000, on Sunday, the 31st July, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.

Ms. Rokia A. Rahman, President of the Federation was in the Chair.

The following members of the Federation were present:

Sl. Name of member-firm Name and designation of theNo. representative attending the AGM

01. Abdul Monem Limited Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem, Deputy Managing Director & CEO

02. Abdul Monem Sugar Refinery Limited Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem, Deputy Managing Director & CEO

03. Advanced Chemical Industries Limited Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla, Chairman

04. ACI Formulations Limited Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla, Managing Director

05. A. K. Khan & Co. Ltd. Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan, Managing Director

06. Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad Mr. M. Shah Alam, Vice Chairman

07. Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Mr. Md. Rafiqul Islam, Exporters Association Joint Secretary (Lab)

08. Bangladesh Jute Mills Association Mr. Najmul Huq, Chairman

Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman, Executive Committee Member

09. British American Tobacco Bangladesh Mr. Golam Mainuddin, Company Limited Chairman

10. Dohatec New Media Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha, Chairman

2

Annual Report-2010

11. G4S Security Service Bangladesh (P) Ltd. Mr. Khondokar Kamaluzzaman, Senior Vice President and Head of HR & A and Training

12. GlaxoSmithKline Bangladesh Ltd. Mr. M. Azizul Huq, Managing Director

13. Igloo Dairy Limited Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem, Deputy Managing Director

14. Janata Jute Mills Limited Mr. Najmul Huq, Managing Director

15. Kapna Tea Co. Ltd.,The Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, Managing Director

16. Kumudini Welfare Trust of Bengal Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha, (Bangladesh) Limited Managing Director

17. Maritime Services Limited Mr. Badrul Haider Miah, Controller of Accounts

18. Mohsen Jute Mills Ltd. Syed Tareque Md. Ali, Director

19. Novartis (Bangladesh) Ltd. Mr. Ashfaque ur Rahman, Managing Director

20. Osman Textiles Limited Mrs. Sabrina Islam, Director

21. Plummy Fashions Limited Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque, Managing Director

22. Pubali Jute Mills Limited Mr. Kamran T. Rahman Managing Director

23. Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. Mr. Niaz Rahim, Director

24. R.R. Cold Storage Limited Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, Chair & Managing Director

25. Sidko Apparels Limited Mrs. Sadaf Saaz Siddiqi, Director

26. Sadat Jute Industries Ltd. Mr. Najmul Huq, Chairman

27. Technohaven Co. Ltd. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim, Managing Director

28. Women Entrepreneurs’ Association, Ms. Ayesha Kabir, Bangladesh Joint Secretary

There being a quorum, the Chairperson called the thirteenth Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Federation to order, and in doing so, she welcomed the members present.

Annual Report-2010

3

Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President, BEF addressing the 13th Annual General Meeting held at BEF

Conference Hall on the 31st July, 2011. The newly elected President, Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque is seen sitting on

her right.

The Chairperson stated that the notice for the meeting giving the agenda and the requisite enclosures were circulated to all the members and requested that the notice be taken as read. There being no dissent the notice was taken as read.

The Chairperson then said that the Annual Report circulated with the notice for the AGM contained the report of activities of the Federation during the year ended on the 31st December, 2010. Some of the important developments, events, and activities which took place during the period, January – July, 2011, should be highlighted briefly before taking up the agenda for the meeting, she said.

The Chairperson then mentioned that the Federation remained constantly engaged with the Ministry of Labour and Employment on reviewing

the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006. The Chair informed the members that the Ministry had received over 400 amendment proposals from various stakeholders, and the Tripartite Review Committee and the Working Group formed by the Ministry for reviewing the amendment proposals had held several meetings to discuss the proposed amendments. The final amended draft is yet to be discussed with the stakeholders by the Ministry.

The Chair then informed that the Ministry of Labour and Employment had taken a move to amend the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006. The Federation had given its view on the proposed amendment. The Ministry of Labour and Employment had sent the proposed amendment to the Ministry of Commerce for comments instead of seeking comments from relevant stakeholders. The proposed amendments

Annual Report-2010

4

A partial view of the members present in the 13th Annual General Meeting

of the Federation on the 31st July, 2011.

were extremely detrimental to the interest of the employers, the Chair observed. Accordingly, the Federation had strongly objected to those proposed amendments and the Federation had also requested its group members like Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association, Bangladesh Jute Mills Association, etc to give similar views which they did, the Chairperson appraised the members.

The Chair then mentioned that the Federation continued to hold regular meetings with the Minister, State Minister and the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment. She said that in one of the regular meetings, she along with other senior members and the Presidents of major line associations (BGMEA and BKMEA) had met the Minister and gave the employers’ views and proposals on important issues, such as, (i) holding of Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) meeting as soon as possible, (ii)

expediting reviewing of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (iii) concerns on extension of Maternity Leave from 16 weeks to 6 months for the female workers of public sector and its subsequent implications for the private sector female workers, and (iv) Labour Policy 2010 etc. The Minister had assured BEF delegation of making decisions through proper interaction and dialogues, the Chair informed the members.

Then the Chairman informed the members

that the Federation continued to review the overall labour relations situation in the country, particularly due to slow economic recovery from the global financial melt-down. The Federation had voiced its concerns at different fora highlighting the impact of the global financial crisis on the labour market. The Federation also stressed the need for continuous support for the affected sectors and need for job creation, opportunities for re-employment of returnee workers from Middle East and so on, the Chair appraised the members.

Next, the Chair mentioned that the Federation had remained actively involved in various activities of the ILO throughout the year. It continued to provide support in Government’s TVET Reform Project implemented by the ILO. The Federation had also been assisting the ILO’s Decent Work Country Programme, the Chair said.

Then the Chairperson mentioned the generous support received from the Association of Overseas Technical

Annual Report-2009 Annual Report-2010

5

Scholarship (AOTS), Japan through out the year. Every year, the Federation used to receive 5/6 course vacancies for the senior and mid-level managers of the member firms to obtain various skills development training on contemporary management and technical issues from Japan without sharing any cost from their own sources.

Then the Chairperson added that the Federation with the technical cooperation of ILO Dhaka Office had organised a number of workshops in the important industrial belts on Gender equality at workplaces, HIV/AIDS etc., particularly for creating awareness among the employers. The Federation had also drafted a Policy Guidelines on Gender Equality at Workplaces which would be circulated among the member-firms soon, the Chair mentioned. Besides, a hand book on Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) was also to be published through the technical assistance rendered by ILO, the Chair informed. This hand book would act as a ready reference for Managers and Supervisors and this would help member-firms to be more compliant on OSH issues, the Chair appraised the memebers.

The Federation continued to receive a good number of delegations from ILO and IOE during the period, the Chair mentioned.

Then the Chairperson informed the members that a 3-member team from the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation was included in the Bangladesh delegation to attend the 100th Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC), held in Geneva from the 1st June to the 17th June 2011. Due to her other important occupation, the Chair could not join the delegation later. However, Mr. Kamran

T. Rahman and the Secretary-General Mr. Farooq Ahmed attended the Conference, she mentioned. She then apprised the members that Mr. Kamran T. Rahman had been elected the Deputy Member of the ILO Governing Body and Regional Vice-President of IOE for Asia-pacific Region, and congratulated Mr. Kamran T. Rahman once again for being elected on the Board of those two reputed international Organizations.

With these words, the Chairperson took the agenda and moved the Resolution under Agenda No.1:

"That the Report of the proceedings of the Committee of the Federation for the period from the 1st January to 31st December 2010 be and is hereby passed and accepted."

Mrs. Sabrina Islam of Osman Textiles Limited seconded the proposal which was passed unanimously

At the request of the Chair, a Member of the Committee, Mr. M. Azizul Huq moved the Resolution No. 2:

"That the Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year ended on the 31st December 2010 and the Balance-Sheet as at that date, as audited and certified by the Federation's Auditors, be received and passed."

Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla of Advanced Chemical Industries Limited seconded the proposal, which was passed and adopted without dissent.

Then at the request of the Chair, Mr. M. Azizul Huq moved the Resolution No. 3:

"That Messrs. A. Qasem & Co., Chartered Accountants, be and are

Annual Report-2009Annual Report-2010

6

hereby appointed as the Federation's Auditors for the year 2011 at the remuneration of TK.25,000/-."

Mr. Golam Mainuddin of British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Limited seconded proposal, which was passed and adopted without dissent.

The Chairperson then took up Agenda No. 4 relating to filling up of vacant seats and announced that that there were 8 (eight) valid candidates against 8(eight) vacant seats representing the Ordinary members and 6 (six) valid candidates against 8 (eight) vacant seats representing Group members. Hence, election was not required.

The Election Board declared the following persons (in alphabetical order) ipso facto elected to the Federation's Committee for the term, 2011-2013 under Rule 12 of the Bangladesh Employers' Federation (Election of the Members of the Committee) Rules, 1998 (as amended in 2001 & 2005 and as adopted at the Federation's Committee meeting held on the 21st March, 2011), subject to approval at this AGM:

Ordinary Members

(1) Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla Managing Director ACI Formulations Ltd.

(2) Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque Managing Director Plummy Fashion Ltd

(3) Mr. Golam Mainuddin Chairman British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd.

(4) Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur Managing Director Apex Adelchi Footwear Ltd.

(5) Mr. Niaz Rahim Director Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. (6) Mr. Ashfaque ur Rahman Managing Director Novartis (Bangladesh) Ltd.

(7) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman Managing Director Pubali Jute Mills Ltd (8) Mrs. Sadaf Saaz Siddiqi Director Sidko Apparels Ltd.

Group Members

(1) Mr. M. Shah Alam Vice-Chairman Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

(2) Ms. Nahid Hasan Director Bangladesh Garment

Manufacturers and Exporters Association

(3) Mr. Najmul Huq Chairman Bangladesh Jute Mills

Association

(4) Ms. Ayesha Kabir Director Women Entrepreneurs

Association, Bangladesh

(5) Mr. Mohammad Shams-uz-Zoha Chairman Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

(6) Mr. A.H. Aslam Sunny Vice-President (Finance) Bangladesh Knitwear

Manufacturers and Exporters Association

Annual Report-2010

7

The following Ordinary members would remain on the Committee as they were elected last year:

(1) Mrs. Rupali Chowdhury

(2) Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan

(3) Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha

(4) Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha

The Chairperson then announced the composition of the full Committee for 2011-2013:

01. Mr. M. Shah Alam

02. Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla

03 Mrs. Rupali Chowdhury

04. Ms. Nahid Hasan

05. Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque

06. Mr. Najmul Huq

07. Ms. Ayesha Kabir

08. Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan

09. Mr. Golam Mainuddin

10. Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur

11. Mr. Niaz Rahim

12. Mr. Ashfaque ur Rahman

13. Mr. Kamran T. Rahman

14. Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha

15. Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha

16. Mr. Muhammad Shams-uz Zoha

17. Mrs. Sadaf Saaz Siddiqi

18. Mr. A.H. Aslam Sunny The Chairperson then formally

moved the following resolution -

"That election of the 8 (eight) Ordinary members, viz. (1) Mr. M. Anis

Ud Dowla, (2) Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque, (3) Mr. Golam Mainuddin, (4) Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur, (5) Mr. Niaz Rahim, (6) Mr. Ashfaque ur Rahman, (7) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, and (8) Mrs. Sadaf Saaz Siddiqi and six Group members, viz. (1) Mr. M. Shah Alam, (2) Ms. Nahid Hasan, (3) Mr. Najmul Huq, (4) Ms. Ayesha Kabir, (5) Mr. Mohammad Shams-uz-Zoha and (6) Mr. A.H. Aslam Sunny to the Federation's Committee for the term, 2011-2013, as per the report of the Election Board, be confirmed."

Mr. Najmul Huq of Sadat Jute Industries Ltd. seconded the proposal which was passed unanimously.

The Chairperson, on behalf of all members of the Federation, thanked Mr. A.K.M. Rafiqul Islam, FCA, Chairman of the Election Board and Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury, FCA and Mr. Adeeb H. Khan, FCA, Members of the Election Board for providing their valuable time in conducting the election.

At the same time, the Chair also expressed her gratitude to Mr. Abdul Hafiz Choudhury, FCA, Chairman of the Appeal Board and Mr. Md. Shamsul Alam Mallick, FCA and Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali, Members of the Appeal Board for having had agreed to serve on this Board.

Then the Chair announced that at a meeting of the new Committee held that morning prior to the 13th AGM, Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque had been elected the President and Mr. Ashfaque ur Rahman had been elected the Vice-President of the Federation for the term, 2011-2013.

The Chairperson concluded by expressing her thanks and appreciation

(Rokia Afzal Rahman) PRESIDENT SECRETARY-GENERAL

Annual Report-2010

8

to the Vice-President and all members of the Committee for their active support while discharging the responsibilities as the Federation President during her 2-year tenure. She then proposed a vote of thanks for the outgoing members of the Committee for their kind support in upholding employers�Einterest in local fora and at the international level. The success had been possible because all members of the Committee extended due cooperation and worked as a key team players, the Chair said. Without their support, solidarity, counsel and advice, it would have been difficult for the Federation to achieve what it did, she added.

Then the Chairperson thanked the Secretary-General and all the staff-members of the Federation for their sincere work and dedication to carry out the operations throughout the year.

Then the Chair welcomed the newly elected members, the President and the Vice-President; and expressed

her hope that they, as well as the rest of the Committee members would continue to contribute to the fruitful deliberations of the Committee in the coming days.

Mr. Azizul Huq, a Committee Member then on behalf of all members, offered a vote of thanks to the President, Mrs. Rokia A. Rahman for her unstinted work which had been carried out throughout the year and her conscientious discharge of responsibilities and deep insight, guidance and support provided to the Committee and the work that had been done on behalf of the Committee and the Federation. Mr. Huq thanked all the other members for their contributions. Then he welcomed the newly elected members of the Committee and expressed hope that the new Committee would continue with equal zeal and commitment in the years to come.

Finally, the Chairperson thanked

all present and closed the meeting at 1:30 p.m.

Annual Report-2010

9

BANGLADESH EMPLOYERS’ FEDERATION (BEF)

ANNUAL REPORT

(JANUARY – DECEMBER 2010)

The Committee of Bangladesh Employers' Federation has the pleasure of submitting to its members the following Annual Report for the year 2010.

During the period, from January to December, 2010, the Federation continued its efforts to uphold the interests of the employers at all levels. The Federation held several meetings with the Ministry of Labour and Employment on issues like industrial relations, the issues regarding wage, employment, and industrial relations in various industrial sectors, functional effectiveness of the Crises Management Committee, situation of the remittance inflow, and job loss for Bangladeshi migrant workers in a number of countries in the Middle East and South East Asia, and etc. The Federation regularly shared its views/opinions on growth, employment generation, social protection and social dialogue, productivity improvement, occupational safety and health, gender equality at workplace, social compliance, etc. with various national/international organizations including government. The Federation represented the employers in the Minimum Wage Board on regular basis and made skillful negotiations on fixation of minimum wages of concerned sectors which had been referred to the Board by the government. The Federation continued its effective contribution in negotiation of the amendment proposals for Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006.

On the international front, the Federation held meetings with the

International Labour Organisation (ILO), the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), the Confederation of Asia-Pacific Employers (CAPE) and Association for Overseas Technical Scholarships (AOTS) of Japan. In these meetings, the Federation projected the need for capacity building and technical assistance for rendering better services to their members, and for effecting strategy formulation for the employers' organizations in the developing economies for facing the challenges of human resource development, particularly at the time when the world economy was emerging out of global recession and job loss. The Federation also underscored the need for rural employment creation, social protection and safety net for the more vulnerable groups of workers.

At the national level, the Federation actively took part on various consultation meetings of different committees and groups under the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) reform project of Bangladesh Government implemented by the ILO and funded by the European Commission, and contributed significantly in finalising the Draft National Skills Development Policy 2010-2015, which has been awaiting approval by the relevant authorities.

1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE

BANGLADESH LABOUR ACT, 2006

The Government has taken initiative to amend the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. The Ministry of

Annual Report-2010

10

Labour and Employment constituted tripartite Committee and Working Group to undertake the work. The Federation regularly participated in the tripartite consultation meetings organized by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on the amendment proposals on the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. A total of 387 proposals for amendments were received by the Ministry. The tripartite Working Group formed for reviewing the amendment proposals assigned with the initial responsibility to review the proposals had reviewed 69 proposals by the 23th February, 2010. The BEF Committee noted that only 34% of the proposals discussed so far were agreeable to both workers and employers subject to some modification in the text of a number of proposals, and the rest 66% of the proposals would be referred to the Review Committee as the stakeholders could not reach agreement on those proposals.

2. MEETINGS WITH MINISTERS/

EMPLOYERS/ WORKERS/ OTHER

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

During the period, the Federation held several meetings with the Minister for the Ministry of Labour and Employment, and the Ministry of Expatriates' Welfare and Overseas Employment, and with the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Federation highlighted different points

and drew the Government's attention/ intervention as and when required. Some of the key issues raised were as under:

1) The Draft Domestic Worker Protection and Welfare Policy 2010, and the introduction of an ILO Convention on "Decent Work for Domestic Workers", which was discussed during the International Labour Conference in June, 2010.

2) The unilateral decision by the Government to extend the retirement age of all workers from 57 to 60 years, for which the Federation sought clarification whether it would also be applicable to employees in the private sector.

3) Reconstitution of the Tripartite Consultative Council.

4) Employment creation, particularly in the rural non-farm sectors.

5) Improvement of the industrial relations situation, particularly in the ready made garments sector.

3. REVIEW OF THE LABOUR

SITUATION

The Federation Committee regularly reviewed and prepared reports

on the labour situation prevailing in the country, and appraised the members. The Federation also took note of a number of incidents including frequent strikes and agitations of workers that took place during the year, mostly in the garments sector. The Federation also discussed the progress of the Minimum Wage Board to determine the minimum wage in selected sectors, which had been referred to the Board.

Annual Report-2010

11

4. 99TH SESSION OF THE ILC: BEF'S

PARTICIPATION

The 99th session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) was held in Geneva, Switzerland from the 2nd to the 18th June 2010. The Committee nominated the President, Mrs. Rokia Afzal Rahman as the Delegate and the former President, Mr. Kamran T. Rahman and the Secretary-General, Mr. Farooq Ahmed as the Substitute Delegates cum Advisers.

BEF noted that the 99th Session of the ILC 2010 was significant because of the global financial situation coming out of the recession and the adoption of an instrument on decent work for domestic workers. It was also noted that Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, Former President of BEF, had been elected the Vice-President of International Organization of Employers (IOE) for the Asia-Pacific Region, a prestigious issue for the Federation.

The following items among others were included in agenda of the 99th Session of the ILC 2010:

1) Reports of the Chairperson of the Governing Body and of the Director-General;

2) Global Report under the Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work;

3) Information and reports on the application of Conventions and Recommendations;

4) Elaboration of an autonomous Recommendation on HIV/AIDS in the world of work;

5) Decent work for domestic workers (standard setting, with a view to possible adoption of a Convention supplemented by a Recommen- dation);

6) A discussion on the strategic objective of employment (first in the cycle of recurrent discussions to follow up on the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization); and

7) Review of the follow-up to the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

5. TRAINING PROGRAM FOR

MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS

ON HIV/AIDS

BEF conducted a training program for managers and supervisors

on HIV/AIDS issues as one of the national implementation partners of the ILO's project titled, "HIV/AIDS for Managers and Supervisors at the Workplace", aimed at minimizing the impact of HIV/AIDS at the workplace. BEF successfully trained 123 managers, supervisors, and proprietors of various enterprises engaged in different industrial and commercial sectors in Rajsahi, Sylhet, Barisal, and Mymensingh.

6. SOCIAL DIALOGUE TO IMPROVE

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

SITUATION IN THE READY-MADE

GARMENTS SECTOR

The Federation continued its effort to organize social dialogues

Annual Report-2010

12

between the stakeholders to improve the prevailing situation of industrial relations in the Ready-Made Garments (RMG) sector of Bangladesh, and at the initiative of the Federation President, a bipartite meeting was held on the 6th April 2010 where 10 representatives each from employers and workers were invited to attend the meeting. The Vice-Presidents from BGMEA and BKMEA represented respective organizations along with other members. From the workers' group, 3 central leaders and 7 worker leaders from RMG sector were invited to attend the meeting. The meeting was moderated by the Federation President. Both sides were extremely patient in hearing one another. The employer group had raised their concerns regarding trade union culture, need for workers' knowledge and education, buyers' pressure on compliance issues, infrastructural limitations, etc. On the other hand, the workers group had pointed out their rights on collective bargaining, freedom of association, mishandling by mid-level managers, lack of interaction in between workers and employers, etc. The stakeholders of the garment sector, i.e., the single largest employment sector of the country, positively responded very enthusiastically to this much needed

initiative by the Federation, and BEF may continue such dialogues in the future.

7. THE BEF/ILO TRAINING WORK-

SHOP ON "OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH (OSH)" IN

CHITTAGONG

BEF, with technical assistance received from the ILO, organized a training workshop on "Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)" held in

Chittagong on the 11th April 2010. A total of 72 participants joined the workshop though it was initially planned for only 45 participants. Federation President Mrs. Rokia Afazal Rahman inaugurated the workshop. The participants interacted with the resource persons as well as among themselves and took note of various regulatory and other practical aspects of maintaining OSH at plant level. The employers representatives appreciated the success of the workshop, and there were requests from different industrial sectors to the BEF to continue such workshops in future on industry-specific OSH issues.

8. MATERNITY LEAVE: EXTENSION

OF THE DURATION

The Federation discussed the Government's decision to extend of the duration of maternity leave for working

Annual Report-2010

13

mothers from the present 16 weeks to 6(six) months for the public sector female workers. The BEF Committee discussed the issue in detail, reviewed its likely impact on the female workers of private sector. The Committee also observed that tripartite consultative process was not being followed for formulating such rules.

The Committee after a detailed discussion decided to bring the issue to the notice of the Labour Minister during an upcoming meeting. The BEF Secretariat collected information on similar laws being practised in the regional countries, and found out the Bangladesh was one of the countries in the region that allowed the highest time of paid maternity leave.

9. VISIT OF MR. SCOTT BARKLAMB,

SENIOR ADVISER TO IOE

Mr. Scott Barklamb, Senior

Adviser to International Organisation of Employers (IOE), visited the Federation on the 5th December 2010. His visit had strengthened cooperation between BEF and IOE and it was further expected that IOE would render possible support in introducing Better Work Programme in RMG sector in Bangladesh.

10. VISIT OF HIGH-POWERED ILO

MISSION TO BANGLADESH

A high-powered ILO Mission led

by Mr. Guy Ryder, Executive Director, Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ILO, Geneva along with two other members visited Bangladesh on December 12-15, 2010. The purpose of the ILO Mission was to promote and

strengthen the collective bargaining mechanism in the export sector of Bangladesh, especially in the RMG sector. The delegation held extensive discussions with the employers, workers and government. A meeting was organised at the Federation on the 13th December 2010 where the employers from the RMG sector were invited to interact with the delegation. The delegation had also shown keen interest regarding introduction of trade union in the EPZs. The delegation left Bangladesh with clearer insights on the complexities existing in promoting collective bargaining in the RMG sector and in EPZ. In this context, the BEF Secretariat undertook a brief research and found that most countries in the region allowed only limited union activities, if any, in the EPZs.

11. ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN THE

TVET REFORM PROJECT OF

BANGLADESH GOVERNMENT

Bangladesh Employers' Federation continued active engagement with the various activities and programs under the TVET Reform Project Bangladesh 2007-2012 implemented by the International Labour Organization (ILO) for Bangladesh Government. In the process, BEF has so far contributed significantly in formulation of the draft National Skills Development Policy, 2010, and has supported the formation of Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) for 5 priority sectors, e.g., Agro Food Processing, Leather & Leather Goods, Transport Equipment, Information Technology, and Tourism and Hospitality Industry.

Annual Report-2010

14

I. MEMBERSHIP:

New Members:

During the period, the following organisations joined the Federation as new members: Ordinary Members

Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Plummy Fashions Limited

II. MANAGING COMMITTEE

At the commencement of the year, i.e. on the 1st January, 2010, the managing Committee of the Federation comprised of the following:

PRESIDENT

Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman Chair & Managing Director, R. R. Cold Storage Limited

VICE-PRESIDENT

Mr. Muhammad A. (Rumee) Ali Chairman, BRAC Bank Limited

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Ordinary Members:

01. Mr. Akhtar Ahmed Managing Director & CEO, Reliance Insurance Limited

02. Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury Managing Director, Nuvista Pharma Limited

03. Mrs. Simeen Hossain Executive Director & Chief Executive Officer, Transcom Limited

04. Mr. M. Azizul Huq Managing Director, GlaxoSmithKline Bangladesh Ltd.

05. Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Regional Senior Vice President, Middle East, Africa & South Asia-East, American Life Insurance Company

06. Mrs. Sabrina Islam Director, Osman Textiles Limited

07. Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem Deputy Managing Director, Abdul Monem Limited

08. Mrs. Rokeya Quader Chairman, Desh Garments Limited

Annual Report-2010

15

09. Mrs. Perveen Rasheed Managing Director, Social Marketing Company

10. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani Managing Director, Khadim Ceramics Limited

Group Members:

11. Mr. Ahmed Hossain Chairman, Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association 12. Mr. Ardashir Kabir Vice-Chairman, Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad 13. Mrs. Sonia Bashir Kabir Director, Women Entrepreneurs' Association, Bangladesh 14. Dr. Muhammad Abdul Moyeen Director, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association 15. Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman Executive Committee Member , Bangladesh Jute Mills Association 16. Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin Director, Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association

The following members were to retire on the eve of the 12th A.G.M. held on the 27th July 2010 on completion of two-year term 2008-2010:

Ordinary Members

(1) Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury Managing Director, Nuvista Pharma Limited.

(2) Mrs. Simeen Hossain Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer Transcom Limited.(3) Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani Managing Director, Khadim Ceramics Limited.

(4) Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha Managing Director, Kumudini Welfare Trust of Bengal (BD) Limited.

Group Members

No Group Member was to retire on the eve of the 12th AGM.

Annual Report-2010

16

Of the 4 (four) retiring Ordinary members mentioned above, Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury, Mrs. Simeen Hossain and Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani retired on completion of their two-year terms and were not eligible to seek re-election for the next two annual terms, viz., 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Their respective organizations were also not eligible to nominate anyone else to seek election for the next two annual terms. However, Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha, who was co-opted on the Committee to fill up the seat vacated by Ms. Perveen Rasheed, remained eligible to seek election for a full two-year term.

Ms. Perveen Rasheed served on the Committee for the most part of her two-year term, 2008-2010 and thus,

she was not eligible to seek election for the next two annual terms. Her nominating organization, Social Marketing Company was also not eligible to nominate anyone else to seek election for the next two annual terms.

Election was thus required for 4(four) vacancies from the Ordinary members.

Besides the above 4(four) vacancies, two seats from the Group members remained vacant in 2009-2010, for which election was required.

Election was needed for total 6(six) vacancies (four vacancies from Ordinary members and two vacancies from Group members).

The following members were elected to the Committee for the two-year term, 2010-2012:

Ordinary Members

01. Mrs. Rupali Chowdhury Managing Director, Berger Paints Bangladesh Limited

02. Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan Managing Director, A.K. Khan & Co. Ltd.

03. Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha Managing Director, Kumudini Welfare Trust of Bengal (BD) Limited

04. Mrs. Luna Shamsuddoha Chairman, Dohatec New Media

The Management Committee of the Federation as in August 2010 (after the 12th AGM held on the 27th July, 2010) was as follows:

President

Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman

Vice-President

Mr. Muhammd A. (Rumee) Ali

Annual Report-2010

17

Committee Members (In alphabetical order)

(1) Mr. Akhtar Ahmed 2) Ms. Rupali Chowdhury

(3) Mr. Ahmed Hossain (4) Mr. M. Azizul Huq

(5) Mr. Md. Nurul Islam (6) Mrs. Sabrina Islam

(7) Mr. Ardashir Kabir (8) Mrs. Sonia Bashir Kabir

(9) Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan (10) Mr. A.S.M. Mainuddin Monem

(11) Dr. Muhammad Abdul Moyeen (12) Mrs. Rokeya Quader

(13) Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman (14) Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha

(15) Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha (16) Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin

III. SUB-COMMITTEES

As constituted by the Managing Committee, the following 13 (thirteen) Sub-Committees functioned during the term 2010-2011:

1. FINANCE & MEMBERSHIP SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Md. Nurul Islam (Chairman) American Life Insurance Company

2. Mr. Kutubuddin Ahmed Envoy Garments Limited

3. Mr. Najmul Huq Bangladesh Jute Mills Association

4. Mr. Ashfaque ur Rahman Novartis (Bangladesh) Limited

5. Mr. Feroz Rahim Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited

6. Mr. Abdul Hai Sarker Bangladesh Textile Mills Association

7. Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

2. LABOUR RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Ms. Rokia A. Rahman (Chairperson) R. R. Cold Storage Ltd.

2. Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla Advanced Chemical Industries Ltd.

3. Mr. Samson H. Chowdhury Bangladesh Aushad Shilpa Samity

4. Mr. Syed Manzur Elahi Apex Adelchi Footwear Limited

5. Mr. A.K.M. Selim Osman Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

6. Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

7. Mr. Abdus Salam Murshedy Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

8. Mr. Kamran T. Rahman Pubali Jute Mills Limited


Annual Report-2010

18

3. LABOUR LAW SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mrs. Rupali Chowdhury (Chairperson) Berger Paints Bangladesh Limited

2. Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla Advanced Chemical Industries Limited

3. Mr. M. A. Baset Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

4. Mr. M.Azizul Huq GlaxoSmithKline Bangladesh Limited

5. Mr. Md. Nurul Islam American Life Insurance Company

6. Mr. Reaz-Bin-Mahmood Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

7. Mr. Golam Mainuddin British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd.

8. Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem Abdul Monem Limited

9. Mr. Kamran T. Rahman Pubali Jute Mills Limited


4. LABOUR COURTS SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Ahmed Hossain (Chairman) Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association


3. Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury Nuvista Pharma Limited

4. Mr. Ardashir Kabir Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

5. Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur Apex Adelchi Footwear Limited


7. Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman Bangladesh Jute Mills Association


5. SELECTION SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Md. Nurul Islam (Chairman) American Life Insurance Company

2. Mr. Akhtar Ahmed Reliance Insurance Limited

3. Mr. Anjan Chowdhury Square Toiletries Limited

4. Mr. A.K.M. Rafiqul Islam, FCA Pragati Insurance Limited

5. Mrs. Sabrina Islam Osman Textiles Limited


7. Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman Bangladesh Jute Mills Association

8. Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha Dohatec New Media

Annual Report-2010

19

6. SEMINAR SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Rajiv Prasad Shaha (Chairman) Kumudini WelfareTrust of Bengal (Bangladesh) Limited

2. Mrs. Simeen Hossain Transcom Limited

3. Mr. Najmul Huq Bangladesh Jute Mills Association


5. Mrs. Sonia Bashir Kabir Women Entrepreneurs' Association, Bangladesh

6. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Technohaven Company Limited



7. WAGES CONSULTATIVE SUB-COMMITTEE (DHAKA REGION)

1. Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin (Chairman) Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association



4. Mr. Md. Nurul Islam American Life Insurance Company

5. Mr. Syed S. Kaiser Kabir Renata Limited

6. Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir Kedarpur Tea Company Limited

7. Mr. Golam Mainuddin British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Limited


9. Mr. A. M. Hamim Rahmatullah Singer Bangladesh Limited

10. Mr. Mir Nasir Hossain Mir Ceramic Limited

8. MINIMUM WAGES RELATED SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman (Chairman) Bangladesh Jute Mills Association


3. Mr. A. Matin Chowdhury Malek Spinning Mills Limited

4. Ms. Nahid Hasan Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

5. Mr. Ahmed Hossain Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association





Annual Report-2010

20

9. PUBLIC RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Ardashir Kabir (Chairperson) Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad


3. Mr. M. Azizul Huq GlaxoSmithKline Bangladesh Ltd.



6. Dr. Muhammad Abdul Moyeen Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

7. Mr. A. S. M. Quasem Newage Garments Limited


10. SAFETY AND WORKING CONDITIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mrs. Rokeya Quader (Chairperson) Desh Garments Limited

2. Mr. Faizun Nabi Chowdhury Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

3. Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir Kedarpur Tea Company Limited

4. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Technohaven Company Limited

5. Mr. Golam Mainudidn British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd.

6. Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur Apex Adelchi Footwear Limited


8. Mr. Alamgir M. Z. Rahman Consumer Products Ltd.

11. TRAINING AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan (Chairman) A.K. Khan & Co. Ltd.

2. Mr. Anjan Chowdhury Square Toiletries Limited


4. Mr. Ahmed Hossain Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

5. Mr. Iftekharul Islam sanofi-aventis Bangladesh Limited


7. Mr. M. Salman Ispahani Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

8. Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque Plummy Fashions Limited

9. Mrs. Rokeya Quader Desh Garments Limited


Annual Report-2009 Annual Report-2010

21

12. WOMEN IN DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

1. Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha (Chairperson) Dohatec New Media


3. Mrs. Simeen Hossain Transcom Limited



6. Ms. Tahniyat A. Karim BRAC Bank Ltd.


8. Mrs. Zeenat Rahim Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited

13. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

( DECENT WORK FOLLOW-UP AND ILO DECLARATION ON FUNDAMENTAL

PRINCIPLES AND RIGHTS AT WORK AND ITS FOLLOW-UP)

1. Ms. Sonia Bashir Kabir (Chairperson) Women Entrepreneurs' Association, Bangladesh

2. Maj.Gen. Amjad Khan Chowdhury (Retd.) Property Development Limited


4. Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

5. Mr. Abdus Salam Murshedy Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association



8. Mr. Alamgir M. Z. Rahman Consumer Products Limited


IV. SECRETARIAT

Mr. Farooq Ahmed continued as the Secretary-General and the CEO of the Federation.

Annual Report-2009Annual Report-2010

22

YEARLY REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERATION

FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE 1ST JANUARY TO THE 31ST DECEMBER, 2010

A. Participation in NICC/AOTS/ITC-ILO/other International Organization's

Training Programs:

The Federation nominated a number of participants to different training programs conducted by the Nippon-Keidanren International Cooperation Center (NICC), Association for Overseas Technical Scholarship (AOTS) and other International Organizations. The list is as follows:

Sl.

No.

Name of

Participant

Designation & Name of

the Firm

Training Program Place & Duration

1. Mr. Absal Shaquib Quoreshi

Secretary Bangladesh Employers’ Federation

NICC’s Program on "Workshop for Officials of Employers’ Organizations”

19th to 23rd January 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

2. Mr. M A Arshad Bhuiyan,

Manager – Human Resource, (Head of HRD) Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

AOTS Program on Industrial Relations (IR) and Human Resource Management (HRM)-[ERPM-1]

19th to 30th July

2010.

Japan

3. Mr. Md. Shariful Islam Mridha

Manager – HR Legal & Risk BRAC Bank Limited

AOTS Program on Occupational Safety and Health Management and Work Environment Improvement

6P

thP to 17P

thP

September, 2010.Yokohama, Japan

4. Ms. Syeda Durdana Kabir,

HR Manager (Factory) Nestle (Bangladesh) Ltd.

AOTS Program on Industrial Relations (IR) and Human Resource Management (HRM)-[ERPM-2]

18P

thP to 29P

thP

October, 2010. Yokohama, Japan

5. Mr. Md. Ali Hossain,

Senior Manager, HRD and Training Square Pharmaceuticals Limited.

AOTS Trainers’ Training Course on Management Training Program (MTP) - [ERMI]

11P

thP to 26P

thP

November 2010. Yokohama, Japan

6. Mr. M. Shabbir Ali

Senior Vice President - Human Resources Division AB Bank limited

AOTS “Refresher Seminar for Former Participants of NICC Short-Term Programs”

6P

thP to 10P

thP

December 2010. Yokohama, Japan

Yokohama,

Annual Report-2010

23

Mr. Absal Shaquib Quoreshi, Secretary

of Bangladesh Employers' Federation

attended the NICC's Workshop held at

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 19th to

23rd January, 2010 (Sitting 1st from

left).

Mr. M. A. Arshad Bhuiyan, Manager-

Human Resource, (Head of HRD) of

Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

participated the AOTS Programme on

Industrial Relations (IR) and Human

Resource Management (HRM) - [ERPM-1]

held at Yokohama, Japan during the 19th

to 30th July 2010.

Mr. Md. Shariful Islam Mridha, Manager-

HR Legal & Risk of BRAC Bank Limited

attended the Training Programme on

Occupational Safety and Health

organised by AOTS at Yokohama, Japan

during the 6th to 17th September 2010.

Ms. Syeda Durdana Kabir, HR Manager

(Factory) of Nestle (Bangladesh) Ltd.

participated the AOTS Training Programme on

Industrial Relations (IR) and Human Resource

Management (HRM)- [ERPM-2] at Yokohama,

Japan from 18th to 29th October 2010.

Annual Report-2010

24

B. Bangladesh Employers’

Federation’s Participation in

Seminars/Workshops/Sympo-

siums and other National/

International Affairs:

(1) Participation in Local Seminars/ Workshops/ Symposiums:

The Federation participated in various seminars/ workshops/symposiums organised by various ministries, national/ international organizations, think tanks and development partners. The major events where the Federation’s nominee[s] participated were:

(i) Teambuilding Workshop for DTE, BTEB, BMET, FBCCI, and BEF: Focus – “Leadership & Management

and Teambuilding” organised by ILO TVET Reform Project during the 25th – 27th February 2010, at BRAC CDM, Rajendrapur, Gazipur.

(ii) Seminar on “Productivity and Gain Sharing for the Worksers” organised by the ITUC-BC/JILAF/ITUC-AP on the

27th-28th February, 2010 at Hotel Victory Ltd., Dhaka.

(iii) Seminar on “Emerging risks and new patterns of prevention in a changing world of work” organized by B a n g l a d e s h Occupational Safety, Hea l th and

Mr. Md. Ali Hossain, Senior Manager,

HRD and Training of Square

Pharmaceuticals Limited attend the

Trainers' Training Course on Management

Training Programme organised by AOTS

during the 11th to 26th November 2010

at Yokohama, Japan.

Mr. M.Shabbir Ali, Senior Vice-President,

Human Resources Division of AB Bank Limited

participated the Refresher Seminar for former

participants of NICC short-term programmes

organised by AOTS at Yokohama, Japan from

6th to 10th December 2010.

Annual Report-2010

25

Environment Foundation (OSHE) on the 26th April, 2010 at the National Press Club, Dhaka.

(iv) ILO’s Tripartite Consultation Workshop on Measuring Decent Work in Bangladesh held on the 27th – 28th April, 2010 at Hotel Sonargaon, Dhaka.

(v) Tripartite Training Workshop on Assessing and Addressing the Effects of Trade on Employment” organized by ILO from the 8th to the 12th August 2010, at Hotel Sonargaon, Dhaka.

(vi) “Meeting on Competency Skills Log Book Development” organised by ILO TVET Reform Project on the 19th August 2010 at the UNICEF Office, Sheraton Annexe, Dhaka

(vii) “Meeting on Competency Skills Log Book Development” organised by ILO TVET Reform Project on the 31st August, 2010 at the ILO Conference Room, Dhaka.

(viii) “Green Jobs Initiative in Bangladesh”: Stakeholder Workshop on the Report on the Green Jobs Review organized by ILO on the 21st September, 2010 at Dhaka Sheraton.

(ix) "Discussion on the findings of a national study of the gaps in laws and practice of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights in the export processing sector in Bangladesh” Organized by ILO on the 12th December 2010, at the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka.

(xi) “Consultation workshop on Competency Skills Log Book (CSLB) Development” for Tile Fitting Trade” organised by ILO TVET Reform Project on the 19th August, 2010 at the UNICEF Office, Sheraton Annexe, Dhaka.

(2) Bangladesh Employers’ Federation’s

representations at various Interna-

tional Seminars / Workshops /

Conferences:

During the year 2010, representatives of the Federation participated in the following international seminars/ workshops/ conferences:

(i) Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed, Labour Adviser, Bangladesh Employers'

Federation and Mr. Mohammad Munsur Khaled, Additional Secretary (Compliance), Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, attended the ILO’s "Tripartite Workshop on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining for Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives, and Bangladesh” held in Colombo, Sri Lanka during the 1st - 3rd March, 2010.

(ii) Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, Bangladesh Employers’

Federation attended the "ILO/SKILLS-AP/HRD Korea Regional workshop on improving workplace learning and TVET quality assurance in Asia and the Pacific" held at Seoul Institute for Vocational Training in Advanced

Annual Report-2010

26

Technology (SIVAT) in Incheon, the Republic of Korea during the 20th – 23rd April, 2010.

(iii) Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation, attended ILO Tripartite workshop titled, “Global Child Labour Conference” held in the Hague on the 10th - 11th May, 2010

(iv) Mr. Santosh Kumar Dutta, Joint Secretary, Bangladesh Employers' Federation, participated in the ILO Regional Workshop on “Monitoring and Assessing progress on Decent Work in

Asia” held in Bangkok, Thailand during the 28th – 30th June, 2010.

(v) Mr. Ali Haider Chowdhury, Secretary General, Bangladesh Association of International Recruiting Agencies (BAIRA), attended the "Visioning Event for an ILO Asia Pacific Community of Practice (CoP) on Migration” held in Chiang Mai, Thailand, during the 25th – 27th October, 2010.

(vi) Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin, Group Director, Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd.

attended the ILO’s tripartite meeting on “Asia-Pacific Community of Practice on Green Jobs: Challenges and Opportu- nities for Knowledge Networking” held in Jakarta, Indonesia, on the 14th - 15th December, 2010.

C. Bangladesh Employers’ Federation

(BEF) – International Labour

Organizations’ (ILO) – Joint

programs:

Following joint activities were undertaken with the ILO:

(1) BEF/ILO Workshop on "Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)" in Chittagong

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO), organized a day-long training workshop on "Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)" on the 11th April, 2010 in Chittagong. Seventy two (72) participants attended the workshop.

Mrs. Rokeya Quader, Chairman, Safety and Working Conditions Sub-Committee, BEF, delivered the address of welcome. Mr. Gagan Rajbhandari, Director a.i., ILO Office in Bangladesh

Annual Report-2010

27

also delivered a statement. Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President, BEF, delivered the inaugural address. Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, BEF gave a statement to conclude the opening session of the workshop.

The objectives of the workshop program were to renew the awareness and give hands-on training on occupational health and safety measures and safe handling of industrial machinery and accident-prone equipments. Additionally, the national level OSH policies, prevailing laws of the country, occupational safety awareness, measures and capacity building on OSH, role of safety management in preventing accidents and incidents at the workplace, and role of inspector of factories and establishments for improving safety, occupational health, and working conditions were also discussed.

Mr. Tanvirul Islam Khan, Production Manager – Cables, Singer Bangladesh Limited, and Mr. Md. Abdul Hamid, General Manager - Operations, ACI Formulations Limited who had attended the Training of Trainers course on OSH held in the International Training Centre (ITC) of the ILO in Turin, served as the resource persons. They shared and disseminated their learning experience and gathered knowledge from the Turin centre and conducted the sessions of the program

Besides, Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed, Labour Adviser, BEF, and Mr. Nripendra Nath Das, Deputy Chief Inspector, Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments conducted and facilitated sessions of the workshop as specialists on the issue.

(2) BEF/ILO Workshop on "Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)" in Dhaka

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO), organised a day-long training workshop on "Occupational Safety and Health (OSH)" on the 16th May, 2010 at the BEF Conference Hall in Dhaka. Seventy five (75) participants attended the workshop.

In the workshop Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President, BEF, delivered the inaugural address. Mr. Gagan Rajbhandari, Director a.i., ILO Office in Bangladesh and Mr. Gotabaya Dasanayaka, Senior Specialist on Employers Activities, ILO-Sub Regional

Office, New Delhi also delivered their statements. Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, BEF extended the vote of thanks to conclude the opening session.

The training workshop were designed to renew the awareness and give hands-on training on occupational health and safety measures and safe handling of industrial machinery and accident-prone equipments. In

Annual Report-2010

28

addition, national OSH policies, prevailing laws of the country, occupational safety awareness, measures and capacity building on OSH, role of safety management in preventing accidents and incidents at the workplace, and role of inspector of factories and establishments for improving safety, health and working conditions were also discussed.

The resource persons were Mr. Tanvirul Islam Khan, Production Manager – Cables, Singer Bangladesh Limited, and Mr. Md. Abdul Hamid, General Manager - Operations, ACI Formulations Limited who attended the Training of Trainers course on OSH held in the International Training Centre (ITC) of the ILO in Turin. They shared and disseminated their learning experience and gathered knowledge from the ILO Turin centre and conducted the sessions of the program

Additionally, Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed, Labour Adviser, BEF, and Dr. Syed Abul Ehsan, Inspector of Factories and Establishments, Department of Inspection for Factories and Establish- ments conducted and facilitated sessions of the workshop as specialists on the issue.

(3) Consultation meeting on “Gender Equality at the Workplace”

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO), organised a consultation meeting on “Gender Equality at the Workplace” on the 25th May, 2010 in Dhaka. Forty seven (47) representatives from different establishments/organizations attended the consultation meeting.

In the consultation meeting, Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President, BEF, delivered the inaugural address. Mr.

Gagan Rajbhandari, Director a.i., ILO Office in Bangladesh also spoke on the occasion. Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, BEF moderated the session.

Participants from different member organizations of BEF, respondents of the study questionnaire from different organizations, and other stakeholders attended the consultation meeting.

The objective of the consultation meeting was to have views and inputs of the stakeholders on the draft study report entitled “Gender Equality at the Workplace” prepared on behalf of the Bangladesh Employers Federation (BEF) to assess the current situation on gender equality practices at the workplace and formulate Policy Guidelines to promote gender equality at workplace.

Ms. Parveen S. Huda, Consultant, who prepared the draft study report titled “Gender Equality at the Workplace” on behalf of the Bangladesh Employers Federation (BEF), presented the report for views and inputs of the stakeholders on it.

Ms. Tahniyat Ahmed Karim, Head of Human Resources, BRAC Bank Limited, as a designated discussant, commented on the draft study report “Gender Equality at the Workplace”.

Annual Report-2010

29

During the open discussion, among others, Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir, and Mr. Kamran T. Rahmman, Former Presidents, BEF, Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury, Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin, Members of the BEF Committee, and Mr. T. I. M. Nurunnabi Khan, Sr. Program Officer, ILO Office in Bangladesh made comments on the draft report and put forwarded some suggestions for inclusion in the final version of the Gender Equality Study report. Besides, some of the respondents, stakeholders and participants expressed their views and ideas on the draft report.

(4) Training Programs on "HIV/AIDS for Managers and Supervisors at the Workplace"

Bangladesh Employers' Federation in collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO) conducted 4 training events under an ILO project titled "Strengthening Leadership for Mainstreaming and Scaling up of the Response to HIV/AIDS in the World of Work".

BEF successfully trained 123 participants from managerial and supervisory ranks and proprietors i.e., representatives of the employers during

the training activities. There was 1 training event held in each of the Divisional and District towns of Rajshahi, Sylhet, Barisal, and Mymensingh. The number of participants attended the training events were: 37 participants in Rajshahi, 34 participants in Sylhet, 27 participants in Barisal, and 25 participants in Mymensingh, 123 participants in total.

The aim of the training programs was to improve the awareness on HIV/AIDS issues at the workplace level by sensitizing the managers, supervisors, and proprietors, i.e., employers of various commercial and industrial enterprises at the divisional and district level towns.

The trainings at the Divisional and District towns of Rajshahi, Sylhet, Barisal, and Mymensingh were facilitated by qualified and experienced professionals using content materials and training modules developed earlier following the guidelines of the ILO Code of Practice on HIV/AIDS and the world of work.

Annual Report-2010

30

D. Representative on various Committees/Bodies:

During the year under review, the Federation was represented on the following Committees/Bodies:

1. Executive Committee of International Organisation of Employers, Geneva : Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President.

Substitute: Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General.

2. Governing Body of Bangladesh Institute of Management : Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President.

3. Bangladesh Technical Education Board : Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed, Labour Adviser.

4. Bangladesh Minimum Wages Board : Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed, Labour Adviser.5. Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) on Labour Matters of the Ministry of Labour & Employment : (1) Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman, President.

(2) Mr. Muhammad A. (Rumee) Ali, Vice-President.

(3) Mr. C.K. Hyder, Adviser to the Committee.

(4) Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General.

(5) The Chairman, Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation

(6) Mr. Abdul Hai Sarker, Chairman, Bangladesh Textile Mills Association

(7) The Chairman, Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation

(8) The Chairman, Bangladesh Steel and Engineering Corporation

(9) Mr. M. Salman Ispahani, Chairman, Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

(10) Mr. Ahmed Hossain, Chairman, Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

(11) Mr. Abdus Salam Murshedy, President, Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association

Annual Report-2010

31

(12) Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque, President, Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association

(13) Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla, Member of the Committee, BEF.

(14) Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur, Managing Director, Apex Adelchi Footwear Ltd.

(15) Mr. Samson H. Chowdhury, Adviser, Bangladesh Aushad Shilpa Samity

(16) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, Former President, BEF.

(17) Mr. A.K.M. Rafiqul Islam, FCA, Managing Director, Pragati Insurance Limited.

(18) Mr. M. Azizul Huq, Managing Director, GlaxoSmithKline Bangladesh Ltd.

(19) Mrs. Sabrina Islam, Director, Osman Textiles Limited

(20) Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed, Labour Adviser, BEF.

6. Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology (BUET) : Mr. A. S. M. Quasem, Chairman, Newage Garments Ltd.

Additionally, the Federation nominated representatives on various Committees/ Board of Directors/Working Groups formed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment as under:

a. National Council for Industrial Health and

Safety:

(1) Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman(2) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman(3) Mrs. Sabrina Islam(4) Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman(5) Dr. Muhammad Abdul Moyeen(6) Mr. Farooq Ahmed(7) Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed

b. Board of Directors - Bangladesh Shramik

Kalyan Foundation:

(1) Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman(2) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman(3) Ms. Perveen Rasheed(4) Mr. Farooq Ahmed(5) Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed c. Tripartite Review Committee for amendment

of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006:

(1) Ms. Rokia Afzal Rahman(2) Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla(3) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman(4) Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir(5) Mr. M.A. Baset

Annual Report-2010

32

(6) Mr. Akhter Matin Chaudhury(7) Mr. Md. Nurul Islam(8) Mrs. Sabrina Islam(9) Mr. Ahmed Hossain(10) Mr. Khondoker Jamil Uddin (11) Mr. Farooq Ahmed(12) Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed

d. Tripartite Working Group for amendment of

Bangladesh Labour Act 2006

(1) Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla(2) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman(3) Mr. M.A. Baset(4) Mr. Riaz Bin Mahmood(5) Mr. Farooq Ahmed

E. Representatives on the Labour Courts:

At the request of the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of Bangladesh, the Federation proposed the names of employers' representatives for appointement as the panel of members for the seven Labour Courts in the country. The Government appointed following persons vide S. R. O No. 124-AIN/2008/SraKaMa/ Adhisakha-9/A-17/2001 dated the 1st June 2008: First Labour Court,

Dhaka Mr. Md. Rafiqul Islam Mr. A. K. M. Firoz Alam Mr. Rafiqul Islam Mr. Md. Monirul Islam Mr. A K M Anwoar Hossain Mr. Md. Fazlul Hoque Second Labour Court,

Dhaka Mr. Md. Jubayer Alam Mr. Md. Aminur Rahman Khan Mr. Sultan Mahmud Hosseinee Mr. Md. Shafiur Rahman Mr. Tofail Ahmed Mr. Md. Osman Gani SheikhThird Labour Court,

Dhaka Mr. Pulin Bihari Biswas Mr. Mustafa Abdud Dayan Mr. Md. Nurul Islam Mr. Narayan Chandra Lodh Mr. Md. Azizur Rahman Mr. Md. Raquibur Rahman

First Labour Court,

Chittagong Mr. A. Z. M. Tabaruk Ullah Mr. Mir Delwar Hossain Mr. Mohammad Mohshin Chowdhury Mr. A. M. M. Sajjad Mr. Md. Monzur Morshed Mr. Tarique HossainSecond Labour Court, Chittagong Mr. Golam Mustafa Mr. Md. Amir Ali Mr. K. A. M. Khaled Mr. Md. Golam Newaz Mr. M. A. Gaffer (Shapon) Mr. Mohammad A. Jabbar ChowdhuryLabour Court,

Khulna Mr. Rafiqul Islam Mr. S M Sudarshan Mr. S. M. A. Halim Mr. Md. Shah Alam Sikder Mr. M. M. Sohrab Mr. Md. Abul Kalam Labour Court,

Rajshahi Mr. Md. Motahar Hossain Mr. A. S. M. Wasiq Billah Mr. Md. Alauddin Mr. Md. Mortoza Reza Mr. Kazi Shamsuddin Ahmed Mr. Md. Abdul Muttalib

F. Affiliation with World Bodies:

The Federation continued to be affiliated to the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), Geneva and was a member of the Confederation of Asia Pacific Employers (CAPE).


IMPORTANT COURT CASE ON LABOUR MATTERS

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Special Original Jurisdiction)Writ Petition No. 4081 of 2003

AFM Abdur Rahman JSM Emdadul Hoque J

Abdul Hai (Md) ..........................................................................................PetitionervsBangladesh and others ...................................................................... Respondents

November 18th, 2008

Judgment

AFM Abdur Rahman J : This Rule Nisi, dated 22-6-2003, issued at the instance of the writ petitioner Md Abdul Hai, has called upon the respondent Bangladesh Rifles authority to show cause as to why the order dated 1-10-2001, disclosed in Annexure-C, issued by the respondent No.4 and the order dated 31-10-2001, disclosed in Annexure-F discharging and affirming such discharge of the petitioner from the Service of Bangladesh Rifles should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order/orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

It has been asserted in the writ petition that the writ petitioner was appointed as Sepoy in the Bangladesh Rifles on 31-7-1986, having identification No.47396, and since then he was discharging his duty with full satisfaction of the authority of the Bangladesh Rifles. The petitioner, being a very religious person while posted with 30 Rifle Battalion. Bangladesh Rifles, Dhaka participated in BDR

'Qirat' and 'Azan' competition and obtained championship in the year 1989, 1992 and 1996. The Bangladesh Rifles authority having been satisfied about his moral character, allowed him 45 days earn leave with effect from 5th May, 1988 to perform 'Hajj' and the petitioner performed the Holy 'Hajj' accordingly. Later the petitioner was deployed as Driver and served in various stations of the BDR and appeared in all the departmental examinations to obtain a promotion to the post of Lance Naik, he, having obtained high standard of professionalism and also good performance certificate and good name from the BDR authorities. While the writ petitioner was posted at Rangpur Sector Head Quarter, he was suddenly handed over a certificate of discharge from Service on 1-10-2001 informing

him that he has been made PvKzix †_‡K ewn®‹vi signed by the Sector Commander, Bangladesh Riffles, Rangpur, Respondent No.4 discharging him from service purported to be under Section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1976 (Ordinance No. 85 of 1976). The writ petitioner was also handed over with Form-E, namely

Annual Report-2010

33

the Roll of JCO/OR/NC(E) along with his discharge certificate.

3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has submitted a representation to the Director General, Bangladesh Rifles, BDR Head Quarter, Dhaka praying for reconsideration of his discharge from service which was rejected through a letter from the Director General of BDR dated 31-10-2001. The writ petitioner again filed an application unsuccessfully before the Director General, Bangladesh Rifles, on 24-7-2002 praying for reconsideration of his discharge and thereafter upon serving a notice demanding justice on 9-10-2002 preferred the instant writ petition and obtained the Rule on 22-6-2003.

4. Pursuant to the service of the Rule, the then learned Deputy Attorney-General Rajik Al Jalil entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and preferred affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 2, the Director General of the Bangladesh Rifles.

5. At the time of hearing of the Rule the learned Advocate Mr Md Yousuf Ali represented the writ petitioner, with whom the learned Senior Counsel Mr Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury appeared,

while the Chief Law Officer of the

country, the learned Attorney-General,

Mr Md Salahuddin Ahmed argued on

behalf of the State.

6. By a supplementary affidavit, the writ petitioner has brought the fact on

record, that in a previous Writ Petition

No. 749 of 1994 a Division Bench of

this Court has decided the similar

question making the Rule absolute.

The learned Senior Counsel Mr Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury while taken this Court through the impugned Annexure-C, strenuously argues that although the writ petitioner has been

discharged from the service, apparently under the provision of section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provision) Ordinance 1976, but practically, the writ petitioner has been punished for a baseless allegation brought against him that he has enticed the wife of the religious teacher of the Rangpur Battalion and, as such, committed offence which liable him to be punished under the provision of law and since the respondent No. 2 admitted the said fact in paragraph No. 4 of Annexure-1, appended to the affidavit-in-opposition, the impugned order of discharge from Service (PvKzix †_‡K ewn®‹vi) is liable to be interfered with by this Court on the ground of violation of provision of section 6 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1976.

7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr Munsurul Hoque Chowdhury vehemently argues that the provision of section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1976, being the provision for dismissal simpliciter, the BDR authority was empowered to discharge any of its employee, without assigning any reason which clearly indicates that the same power can be exercised only when there will be no allegation or stigma against the delinquent employee but some other reason requiring such discharge. But when there raised any allegation or put stigma against any employee of Bangladesh Rifles, exercise of power under section 8 of the said act shall not be available to the BDR authority and in that case the authority must proceed in accordance with the provision made in section 6 of the said ordinance which will give an opportunity to the aggrieved employee of the BDR to explain his position and to prove his innocence through adducing evidence and also allow him to prefer an appeal under section 7 of

Annual Report-2010

34

the said ordinance. The learned senior counsel contends that as the BDR authority exercised the power under section 6 of the said ordinance with a malafide intention, the writ petitioner is deprived of the benefit of appeal as provided in the said ordinance. Therefore this Rule is required to be made absolute.

8. On the other hand, the learned Attorney-General of Bangladesh Mr Salauddin Ahmed seriously assailed the maintainability of the writ petition against the BDR authority which, according to him, a disciplinary force is immune from the jurisdiction of Article 102 of the Constitution, since Article 120(5) and the provision of Article 45 of the Bangladesh Constitution has categorically rendered this immunity to the BDR authority. The learned Attorney-General in this respect referred the case of Col. Md Hashmat AH (Retired) vs Government of Bangladesh reported in 47 DLR (AD) 1, where the learned Attorney-General relied upon paragraph 16 of the judgment passed by his Lordships Mr Justice MH Rahman and strenuously argues that a qualification has been made in the said judgment as to the amenability of the Disciplinary Force under the writ jurisdiction of this Court and since the instant cause comes under the said qualification, this Rule is liable to be discharged.

9. The learned Attorney-General next

argues that the provision of section 8

has empowered the BDR authority to

exercise the power to discharge

simpliciter any of the riflemen or

signalmen without assigning any

reason, since the BDR, being a disciplinary force, is required to maintain the discipline in the force and when it appears to them that it is inexpedient or in the interest of the

Bangladesh Rifles a rifle man or a signal man is required to be discharged from the service, it may exercise the power under section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1976 and the same cannot be challenged on the ground that no notice has been served upon the particular rifle man or signal man or that no reason has been, shown in respect of such discharge. The learned Attorney-General contends that by simply mentioning section 8 in the impugned order the respondents have categorically expressed the intention of the authority that the writ petitioner has been discharged from the service under the provision of section 8 of the said Ordinance. Therefore the instant Rule is liable to be discharged. In this respect the learned Attorney-General further relied on the decision of Bangladesh vs Md Ahdur Rab reported in 33 DLR (AD) 143. The learned Attorney-General further relied on the unreported case of Md Yeahia Khan vs Government of Bangladesh decided in Writ Petition No.5284 of 2004, referring to which the learned Attorney-General argues that if this Court finds that the writ petitioner is entitled to his discharge benefit in respect of his salary and other allowances, the same may be directed by this Court to be

paid to the writ petitioner after

discharging the Rule.

10. We have heard the learned

Advocate on behalf of the writ petitioner

and the learned Attorney-General of

Bangladesh. We have perused the writ

petition, the referred judgments and

other materials on record. We have also considered the argument advanced at the Bar.

11. The question of maintainability since goes to the root of the cause the same may be considered at the outset.

Annual Report-2010

35

It appears that the question which the learned Attorney-General raised before this Court as to the maintainability of the writ petition by a BDR Personnel against the BDR authority has already been decided amply in the case of Col. Md Hashmat Ali (Retired) vs Government of Bangladesh reported in 47 DLR (AD) 1. The learned Attorney-General while referring paragraph 16 of the judgment passed by his Lordship Mr Justice MH Rahman has attempted to rely upon the qualification made by his Lordship in the said judgment, which runs as follows :

"A member of the disciplined force can be an aggrieved person and can also move, subject to the provision of Article 45 of the Constitution, the High Court Division for enforcement of a fundamental right. There are however, certain constitutional limitations of the judicial review of an order passed or action taken against a member of a disciplined force in this country. Reading clause (5) of Article 102, Article 134 and Article 45 of the Constitution together, 1 am of the view that a member of any disciplined force of Bangladesh will not be entitled to any remedy under Article 102 if he is aggrieved (1) by any decision of a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to the defence services unless that decision is coram non judice or malafide; or (II) by an order affecting his terms and conditions of service, passed by or by order of the President; or (III) by any violation of fundamental right

resulting from application of a

disciplinary law for the purpose of

ensuring the proper discharge of duties or

the maintenance of discipline in the

disciplined force."

The learned Attorney-General further relid on the provision of Articles 45 of the Constitution which runs as follows; Constitution of Bangladesh:

"Article 45-Nothing in this Part shall apply to any provision of a disciplinary law relating to members of disciplined force, being a provision limited to the purpose of ensuring the proper discharge of their duties or the maintenance of discipline in that force".

12. Article 45 of the Constitution has been placed under part III of the Constitution which deals with the fundamental rights of the citizens. It has been categorically provided in the aforesaid article that nothing regarding the fundamental rights shall apply to any provision of a disciplinary law relating to members of disciplined force. But in making such non-application of the fundamental rights that particular provision must be limited to the purpose of ensuring the proper discharge of their duties or the maintenance of discipline in that force.

13. Article 102 is the procedural provision as to the initiation of writ petition before the High Court Division but the substantive basis of the said right has been provided in Article 44(1) of the Constitution, which runs as follows;

Constitution of Bangladesh:

"Article 44(1)-The right to move the High Court Division in accordance with clause (1) of Article 102, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed".

(2)....................................................

14. Upon perusal of the impugned Annexure-C, discharging the petitioner, it appears that the said order has been passed by an individual officer of the Bangladesh Rifles, not being an order passed by any Court or tribunal, established under a law relating to the defence service or not that the said order has been passed in respect of any

Annual Report-2010

36

terms and conditions of his service or that the order can be considered as attracts the provision of Article 45 of the Constitution and therefore this Court finds that the instant case aptly comes under the qualification as formulated by their Lordships in the case or Col. Md Hashmat Ali (Retired) vs Bangladesh reported in 47 DLR (AD) I as such this Court finds that the instant writ petition is maintainable under the principles as laid down in that case. Because it has been categorically provided in Article 102(5) of the Constitution and also decided in the aforesaid case that the persons as mentioned in Articles 102 of the Constitution includes a statutory public authority, any Court or tribunal other than a Court or tribunal established under a law relating to defence services of Bangladesh or any disciplinary force or a tribunal to which Article 117 of the Constitution applies, meaning thereby that when a Court or tribunal, constituted under the disciplinary law passed an order, the aggrieved persons cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution before the High Court Division, but when an administrative order has been passed by an individual authority of such disciplined force i.e. Bangladesh Rifles herein, against any of the riflemen or signalmen, employee the aggrieved person can prefer writ petition before the High Court Division. Therefore this Court finds little substance in the argument of the learned Attorney-General Mr Salauddin Ahmed.

Annexure C is the impugned discharge certificate, which runs as follows:

mb` cÎ

cÖZ¨qb Kiv hvB‡Z‡Q †h, †iwRt bs 47396 cèx wmcvnx bvg t †gvt Avãyj nvB, wcZv-g„Z bvwRi

†nv‡mb, MÖvg-cvbevox, WvKNi, cvUMÖvg, _vbv-cvUMÖvg, †Rjv-jvjgvwbinvU‡K cÖkvmwbK eë ’̄vci AvIZvq evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm (we‡kl wewa) Aa¨v‡`k 1976 Gi 8 aviv Abyhvqx PvKzix nB‡Z ewn®‹vi Kiv nBj|

Zvnvi PvKzixi LwZqvb wbgœiƒc t

K| fwZ©i ZvwiL t 31 RyjvB 1986 Bs|

L| ewn®‹v‡ii ZvwiL t 01 A‡±vei 2001 Bs|

M| †gvU PvKzix t 15 ermi 02 gvm|

N| wk¶vMZ †hvM¨Zv t Aóg †kªYx|

O| PvKzixi me©‡kl BDwbU t wWweAvi †m±i mì `ßi, iscyi|

cÖvwaKvi t mì `ßi evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm, wRGwR kvLv XvKv cÎ bs 390/11-cvU©/†RGwR ZvwiL 27 †m‡Þ¤î 2001 Bs|

15. The perusal of Annexure-C prompted this Court to examine the provision of Section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance LXXXV of 1976) which runs as follows :

Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 (Ordinance LXXXV of 1976) :

"Section : 8 - Discharge, etc, of Members without assigning reasons - If the authority specified in column 2 of the Section Schedule is of the opinion that continuance in service of a member mentioned in column 1 is inexpedient or not in the interest of the Bangladesh Rifles, he may, without assigning any reasons, either discharge or may make order for premature retirement with such service benefits to which such member may be entitled under this Ordinance or any rules applicable to him."

evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm (we‡kl wewa) Aa¨v‡`k 1976 Gi †mKkb 8 Abymv‡i dig B Gi gva¨‡g eë¯’v MÖn‡Yi wbwg‡Ë bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj

Annual Report-2010

37

nvB, †m±i mì `ßi, wewWAvi iscyi Gi wei“‡× †Mvcbxq cÖwZ‡e`b t

1| AÎ †m±i bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB Gi PvKzixi bw_cÎ wbix¶v Kwiqv wbgœewY©Z welqvw` wjwce× Kiv n‡jvt

2| D³ ˆmwb‡Ki PvKzixi weeiY t

K| PvKzix‡Z fwZ©i

ZvwiL t 31 RyjvB 1986 Bs|

L| †gvU PvKzix t 15 ermi 01 gvm 18 w`b|

M| c~‡e©i Aciva mg~n t bvB|

N| eZ©gvb Aciva| 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB †m±i mì `ßi, wewWAvi iscy‡i Kg©iZ _vKvKvjxb mg‡q B-28 Bgvg/agx©q wk¶K gIjvbv †gvt byi“j BmjvgI iscy‡i †m±i agx©q wk¶K wnmv‡e Kg©iZ wQ‡jb| MZ 1995 mv‡j iscyi †m±‡i Kg©iZ _vKvKvjxb mg‡q bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB gmwR‡ì †gvqvw¾b wn‡m‡e D³ agx©q wk¶‡Ki mwnZ Zvnvi cwiPq nq, †mB myev‡` D³ ˆmwbK Bgvg mv‡n‡ei evmvq hvZvqvZ KwiZ Ges GK ch©v‡q agx©q wk¶‡Ki ¯¿xi mwnZ ciKxqv †cÖ‡g AvK…ó nq& cieZx©‡Z agx©q wk¶K gvIjvbv byi“j Bmjvg MZ 25 Rvbyqvix 2001 Zvwi‡L AÎ †m±i nB‡Z e`jx ekZt 19 ivB‡dj e¨vUvwjqb, jvjgwbinvU Mgb K‡ib wKš‘ Zvnvi cwievieM© iscy‡i ¯’vbxq †emvgwiK fvovwUqv evmvq Ae¯’vb Kwi‡Z wQj| GgZve¯’vq agx©q wk¶‡Ki Abycw¯’wZ‡Z Zvnvi ¯¿x‡K cÖ‡jvfb †`LvBqv D³ ˆmwbK MZ 15 AvM÷ 2001 Zvwi‡L ivwÎ 21-00 NwUKvq agx©q wk¶‡Ki MÖv‡gi evox nB‡Z Zvnvi ¯¿x‡K fvMvBqv Zvnvi wbR¯^ MÖv‡gi evox‡Z wb‡q hvq| AZtci D³ ˆmwb‡Ki cÖ‡ivPYvq agx©q wk¶‡Ki ¯¿x, agx©q wk¶K gvIjvbv †gvt byi“j Bmjvg‡K MZ 10 AvM÷ 2001 Zvwi‡L ZvjvK cÖ`vb Kivq D³ ˆmwbK MZ 22 AvM÷ 2001 Zvwi‡L D³ gwnjvi mwnZ weevn eÜ‡b Ave× nq d‡j G‡nb AmvgvwRK Kvh©Kjv‡c AÎ ms¯’vi mybvg I fveg~wZ© Pigfv‡e wewNœZ nq|

3| †m±i KgvÛv‡ii gZvgZ| D³ ˆmwbK evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm KZ…©K †K›`ªxqfv‡e Av‡qvwRZ †K¡ivZ Avhvb cÖwZ‡hvwMZvq GKvav‡i wZbevi cÖ_g ¯’vb AwaKvi Kivq evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm KZ…©K Zvnv‡K cweÎ nR¡ cvj‡bi my‡hvM †Ìqv nq| GKRb ag©cÖvY gymjgvb ˆmwbK wn‡m‡e L¨vwZ AR©b KiZt Ab¨ Av‡iK Rb agx©q wk¶K/ gmwR‡ì Bgv‡gi e„×v ¯¿xi mwnZ ciKxqv †cÖ‡g Avm³ nBqv weevn eÜ‡b Ave× nIqv GKwU N„Y¨Zng Aciva hvnv AÎ ms¯’vi mybvg I fveg~wZ© Pigfv‡e ¶zYœ nq| GgZve¯’vq D³ ˆmwbK‡K PvKzix‡Z envj ivLv nB‡j Zvnvi G‡nb Kvh©Kjvc Ab¨vb¨ ˆmwbK‡ì cÖZ¨¶/ c‡iv¶fv‡e cÖfvweZ Kwi‡Z cv‡i weavq evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm Gi HwZn¨ Ges mybvg i¶v‡_© bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB‡K „̀óvš—g~jK kvw¯— ¯îƒc ÒPvKzix nB‡Z ewn®‹viÓ (Discharge from service) cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ mycvwik Kiv nBj|

‡di‡`Šm Avn‡g`K‡Y©j†m±i KgvÛvi¯’vb t †m±i mì `ßi, iscyi

ZvwiL t 20 †m‡Þ¤î 2001 Bs|

17. Upon such confidential report and recommendation of the Sector Commander, it appears, that Form-E appended as Annexure (C)-1 to the writ petition, was filled in by the authority and thereafter the certificate Annexure-E was issued by the said Sector Commander. These two documents Annexure-C and C(l) were handed over to the writ petitioner but the Annexure-1, appended to the authonty. From a plane reading of Annexure-I it appears that certain allegation has been brought against the writ petitioner and the authority came to the satisfaction that such allegation made the writ ft, petitioner liable to be discharged from the service of BDR and accordingly the BDR authority exercised power under section 8 of the said ordinance. This

Annual Report-2010

38

appears to be a palpable illegality. It appears from section 6 of the said ordinance that when the BDR authority has decided to proceed against any of the riflemen, or signalmen, it has to proceed under the provision of section 6 which shall make them liable to issue and serve notice upon the delinquent rifle man and to hear him in person and thereafter, if the BDR authority decides lo impose punishment, it can impose punishment. The provision of section 6 of the said Ordinance is

reproduced below :

"Section: 6 of the said Order: 1976: Inquiry:-(1) When a member is to be proceeded against any of the offences mentioned in section 4, the authority concerned specified in column 2 of the First Schedule shall frame a charge and specify therein the penalty proposed to be imposed and communicate it to the member, thereinafter called the accused, requiring him to show cause within a specified time which shall not be less than seven days and not more than ten days from the date the charge has been communicated to him why the penalty proposed to be imposed on him shall not be imposed and also state whether he desires to be heard in person.

(2) If, after consideration of the cause

shown by the accused, if any; and

hearing him in person, if the accused so

desires, the authority concerned finds

the accused guilty of the charge, he

shall within twenty days of the receipt of

the explanation, impose upon the accused the proposed penalty or any other lesser penalty under section 5."

18. It appears that uponr proceeding under section 6 of the said Ordinance the authority may impose any penalty as provided in section 5 of the said Ordinance which runs as follows :

"Section: 5 of the said Order: 1976: Penalties-The following shall be the penalties which may be imposed upon a member under this Ordinance, namely:

(a) dismissal from service;

(b) removal from service;

(c) discharge from service;

(d) compulsory retirement; and

(e) reduction to lower rank."

19. It appears that section 5(c) of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provision) 1976 (Ordinance/1976) provides for discharge from service as a punishment also. To impose this punishment proceeding under section 6 of the said Ordinance must be drawn which allows an opportunity to the delinquent employee of the BDR not only to be heard in person before the authority mentioned in Column 2 of the schedule appended to the said ordinance, but also entitled to prefer an appeal under section 7 of the said Act. Therefore since the BDR authority found fault in the writ petitioner, it was liable to proceed in accordance with the provision of section 6 of the said ordinance. It appears that since an allegation was found against the writ petitioner the BDR authority could easily discharge the writ petitioner under the provision of section 5(c) of the said ordinance and that would give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal which may or may not be considered by the higher authority. Therefore, this Court finds that although the BDR authority was duty bound to proceed against the writ petitioner under the provision of section 6 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 and to impose punishment under section 5(c) of the Ordinance, discharging him from service, they most illegally exercised

Annual Report-2010

39

the power under section 8 of the Ordinance, depriving the writ petitioner from his legal rights to submit adequate reply against the allegation as brought against him. Therefore this Court finds substantial merit in this writ petition to interfere with the order of the BDR authority disclosed in Annexure-C and to declare the same as having been passed without lawful authority.

20. On the merit of the writ petition the learned Attorney-General argued that no relief can be given to the writ petitioner excepting directing the BDR authority to pay off the discharge

benefit as provided in section 8 of the

Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions)

Ordinance, 1976 and in support of his

contention the learned Attorney-

General relied upon the unreported

case of Md Yeahia Khan vs Government

of Bangladesh in Writ Petition No. 5284

of2004 wherein his Lordship Mr Justice

ABM Khairul Hoque while dealing with

the provision of section 8 of the

aforesaid ordinance held as under;

==

21. In the aforesaid case there was no allegation brought against the writ petitioner and the BDR authority upon reason, otherwise than allegation or stigma, formed the opinion that the continuance of the service of that writ petitioner was inexpedient or not in the interest of the BDR and accordingly that writ petitioner was discharged. But the fact is quite different in the instant case. The Sector Commander upon finding the guilt of the petitioner erroneously recommended for exercising power under section 8 of the Ordinance and accordingly committed illegality and, as such, the ratio decidendi enunciated in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the order of discharge

passed against the writ petitioner cannot be sustained.

22. But the question remains whether the petitioner could be reinstated in the service. It appears that by filing Annexure-E before the Director General, Bangladesh Rifles, the petitioner has accepted his discharge from the service as he has prayed for changing the "discharge from service" into "Immature retirement" under the provision of section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provision) Ordinance 1976. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has served the BDR for 15 years two months and the BDR authority was satisfied with his performance as a rifleman and also in his extra curricular activity, specially in the religious affairs. The allegation brought against him, since not been proved before the BDR authority under a proper proceeding, the writ petitioner is entitled to the alternative option provided in section 8 of the ordnance i.e. change of his discharge from service into Immature retirement. Since the BDR authority has not followed the proceeding as laid down in section 6 of the said ordinance, and the petitioner after accepting the order prayed for a change to the second option of section

8 of the ordinance this Court finds that

the writ petitioner is entitled to the

second option i.e. the Immature

retirement instead of discharge from

the services under the order as

disclosed in Annexure-C, the certificate

issued by the sector commander BDR

Rifles Battalion, Rangpur on 1-10-2001 and accordingly the writ petitioner is entitled to a direction to be given against the respondent to that extent.

23. In view of the discussion and reasonings as above, since the Rule has not been issued in the terms as observed by this Court, this Courts is inclined to dispose of the Rule in the

Annual Report-2010

40

terms that the discharge order passed against the writ petitioner through Annexure-C is required to be modified to Immature retirement on and from the date of passing of the same as disclosed in Annexure-C.

24. In the result, the Rule is disposed of. The discharge of the writ petitioner

from the service .of the BDR, as

disclosed in Annexure-C, is hereby

declared to have been issued without

lawful authority. The respondent No. 2

is directed to modify the discharge order

passed against the writ petitioner, into

immature retirement and to pay his all

retirement benefits as he is entitled

under the law prevailing upto date.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

16. It appears from the materials on

record, as appended to the affidavit-in-

opposition that when the BDR

authority decided to exercise power

under the aforementioned section 8 of

the Bangladesh Rifles (Special

Provisions) Ordinance 1976 they used

to use Form-E and prior to filling up

the Form-E a specific confidential

report procured from direct superior

authority in order to satisfy the higher

authority as to the requirement of

exercise of power under section 8 of the

said Act. Annexure-1 is that

confidential report of the BDR authority

sent by the Sector Commander Sector

Head Quarter, Rangpur Col. Ferdous Ahmed against the writ petitioner which runs as follows :

evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm (we‡kl wewa) Aa¨v‡`k 1976 Gi †mKkb 8 Abymv‡i dig B Gi gva¨‡g eë¯’v MÖn‡Yi wbwg‡Ë bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB, †m±i mì `ßi, wewWAvi iscyi Gi wei“‡× †Mvcbxq cÖwZ‡e`b t

1| AÎ †m±i bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB Gi PvKzixi bw_cÎ wbix¶v Kwiqv wbgœewY©Z welqvw` wjwce× Kiv n‡jvt

2| D³ ˆmwb‡Ki PvKzixi weeiY t

K| PvKzix‡Z fwZ©i

ZvwiL t 31 RyjvB 1986 Bs|

L| †gvU PvKzix t 15 ermi 01 gvm 18 w`b|

M| c~‡e©i Aciva mg~n t bvB|

N| eZ©gvb Aciva| 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB †m±i mì `ßi, wewWAvi iscy‡i Kg©iZ _vKvKvjxb mg‡q B-28 Bgvg/agx©q wk¶K gIjvbv †gvt byi“j BmjvgI iscy‡i †m±i agx©q wk¶K wnmv‡e Kg©iZ wQ‡jb| MZ 1995 mv‡j iscyi †m±‡i Kg©iZ _vKvKvjxb mg‡q bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB gmwR‡ì †gvqvw¾b wn‡m‡e D³ agx©q wk¶‡Ki mwnZ Zvnvi cwiPq nq, †mB myev‡` D³ ˆmwbK Bgvg mv‡n‡ei evmvq hvZvqvZ KwiZ Ges GK ch©v‡q agx©q wk¶‡Ki ¯¿xi mwnZ ciKxqv †cÖ‡g AvK…ó nq| cieZx©‡Z agx©q wk¶K gvIjvbv byi“j Bmjvg MZ 25 Rvbyqvix 2001 Zvwi‡L AÎ †m±i nB‡Z e`jx ekZt 19 ivB‡dj e¨vUvwjqb, jvjgwbinvU Mgb K‡ib wKš‘ Zvnvi cwievieM© iscy‡i ¯’vbxq †emvgwiK fvovwUqv evmvq Ae¯’vb Kwi‡Z wQj| GgZve¯’vq agx©q wk¶‡Ki Abycw¯’wZ‡Z Zvnvi ¯¿x‡K cÖ‡jvfb †`LvBqv D³ ˆmwbK MZ 15 AvM÷ 2001 Zvwi‡L ivwÎ 21-00 NwUKvq agx©q wk¶‡Ki MÖv‡gi evox nB‡Z Zvnvi ¯¿x‡K fvMvBqv Zvnvi wbR¯^ MÖv‡gi evox‡Z wb‡q hvq| AZtci D³ ˆmwb‡Ki cÖ‡ivPYvq agx©q wk¶‡Ki ¯¿x, agx©q wk¶K gvIjvbv †gvt byi“j Bmjvg‡K MZ 10 AvM÷ 2001 Zvwi‡L ZvjvK cÖ`vb Kivq D³ ˆmwbK MZ 22 AvM÷ 2001 Zvwi‡L D³ gwnjvi mwnZ weevn eÜ‡b Ave× nq d‡j G‡nb AmvgvwRK Kvh©Kjv‡c AÎ ms¯’vi mybvg I fveg~wZ© Pigfv‡e wewNœZ nq|

3| †m±i KgvÛv‡ii gZvgZ| D³ ˆmwbK evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm KZ…©K †K›`ªxqfv‡e Av‡qvwRZ †K¡ivZ

Annual Report-2010

41

Avhvb cÖwZ‡hvwMZvq GKvav‡i wZbevi cÖ_g ¯’vb AwaKvi Kivq evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm KZ…©K Zvnv‡K cweÎ nR¡ cvj‡bi my‡hvM †Ìqv nq| GKRb ag©cÖvY gymjgvb ˆmwbK wn‡m‡e L¨vwZ AR©b KiZt Ab¨ Av‡iK Rb agx©q wk¶K/ gmwR‡ì Bgv‡gi e„×v ¯¿xi mwnZ ciKxqv †cÖ‡g Avm³ nBqv weevn eÜ‡b Ave× nIqv GKwU N„Y¨Zg Aciva hvnv AÎ ms¯’vi mybvg I fveg~wZ© Pigfv‡e ¶zYœ nq| GgZve¯’vq D³ ˆmwbK‡K PvKzix‡Z envj ivLv nB‡j Zvnvi G‡nb Kvh©Kjvc Ab¨vb¨ ˆmwbK‡ì cÖZ¨¶/ c‡iv¶fv‡e cÖfvweZ Kwi‡Z cv‡i weavq evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm Gi HwZn¨ Ges mybvg i¶v‡_© bs 47396 A‰et j¨vt bt †gvt Avãyj nvB‡K „̀óvš—g~jK kvw¯— ¯îƒc ÒPvKzix nB‡Z ewn®‹viÓ (Discharge from service) cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ mycvwik Kiv nBj|

‡di‡`Šm Avn‡g`K‡Y©j†m±i KgvÛvi¯’vb t †m±i mì `ßi, iscyi

ZvwiL t 20 †m‡Þ¤î 2001 Bs|

17. Upon such confidential report and recommendation of the Sector Comman- der, it appears, that Form-E appended as Annexure (C)-1 to the writ petition, was filled in by the authority and thereafter the certificate Annexure-E was issued by

the said Sector Commander. These two

documents Annexure-C and C(l) were

handed over to the writ petitioner but

the Annexure-1, appended to the

affidavit-in-opposition, was retained by

the BDR authority. From a plane

reading of Annexure-I it appears that certain allegation has been brought against the writ petitioner and the

authority came to the satisfaction that

such allegation made the writ petitioner

liable to be discharged from the service

of BDR and accordingly the BDR

authority exercised power under section

8 of the said ordinance. This appears to be a palpable illegality. It appears from

section 6 of the said ordinance that when the BDR authority has decided to proceed against any of the riflemen, or signalmen, it has to proceed under the provision of section 6 which shall make them liable to issue and serve notice upon the delinquent rifle man and to hear him in person and thereafter, if the BDR authority decides lo impose punishment, it can impose punishment. The provision of section 6 of the said Ordinance is reproduced below :

"Section: 6 of the said Order: 1976: Inquiry:-(1) When a member is to be proceeded against any of the offences mentioned in section 4, the authority concerned specified in column 2 of the First Schedule shall frame a charge and specify therein the penalty proposed to be imposed and communicate it to the member, thereinafter called the accused, requiring him to show cause within a specified time which shall not be less than seven days and not more than ten days from the date the charge has been communicated to him why the penalty proposed to be imposed on him shall not be imposed and also state whether he desires to be heard in person.

(2) If, after consideration of the cause shown by the accused, if any; and hearing him in person, if the accused so desires, the authority concerned finds the accused guilty of the charge, he shall within twenty days of the receipt of the explanation, impose upon the accused the proposed penalty or any other lesser penalty under section 5."

18. It appears that upon proceeding under section 6 of the said Ordinance the authority may impose any penalty as provided in section 5 of the said Ordinance which runs as follows :

"Section: 5 of the said Order: 1976: Penalties-The following shall be the penalties which may be imposed upon a member under this Ordinance, namely:

Annual Report-2010

42

(a) dismissal from service;

(b) removal from service;

(c) discharge from service;

(d) compulsory retirement; and

(e) reduction to lower rank."

19. It appears that section 5(c) of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provision) 1976 (Ordinance/1976) provides for discharge from service as a punishment also. To impose this punishment proceeding under section 6 of the said Ordinance must be drawn which allows an opportunity to the delinquent employee of the BDR not only to be heard in person before the authority mentioned in Column 2 of the schedule appended to the said ordinance, but also entitled to prefer an appeal under section 7 of the said Act. Therefore since the BDR authority found fault in the writ petitioner, it was liable to proceed in accordance with the provision of section 6 of the said ordinance. It appears that since an allegation was found against the writ petitioner the BDR authority could easily discharge the writ petitioner under the provision of section 5(c) of the said ordinance and that would give an opportunity to the writ petitioner to prefer an appeal which may or may not be considered by the higher authority. Therefore, this Court finds that although the BDR authority was duty

bound to proceed against the writ

petitioner under the provision of section

6 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special

Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 and to

impose punishment under section 5(c)

of the Ordinance, discharging him from

service, they most illegally exercised

the power under section 8 of the

Ordinance, depriving the writ petitioner from his legal rights to submit adequate reply against the allegation as brought

against him. Therefore this Court finds substantial merit in this writ petition to interfere with the order of the BDR authority disclosed in Annexure-C and to declare the same as having been passed without lawful authority.

20. On the merit of the writ petition the learned Attorney-General argued that no relief can be given to the writ petitioner excepting directing the BDR authority to pay off the discharge benefit as provided in section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1976 and in support of his contention the learned Attorney-General relied upon the unreported case of Md Yeahia Khan vs Government of Bangladesh in Writ Petition No. 5284 of 2004 wherein his Lordship Mr Justice ABM Khairul Hoque while dealing with the provision of section 8 of the aforesaid ordinance held as under;

ZwK©Z Av‡`kwU cÖ_‡gB ejv nBqv‡Q †h Bnv 1976 Bs m‡bi Aa¨v‡`‡ki 8 aviv †gvZv‡eK Av‡`k| 8 avivi AvIZvq ¯^xK…Z g‡ZB †Kvbiƒc kvw¯— †Ìqv hvq bv| eZ©gvb †¶‡ÎI ìLv¯—Kvix‡K evsjv‡`k ivB‡djm Gi PvKzix nB‡Z 8 avivi Aaxb 'discharge' Z_v evsjv fvlvq ewn¯‹vi kãwU cÖ‡qvM h_vh_ nq bvB Z_vwc †h‡nZz Av‡`kwU 8 aviv Abyhvqx cÖ`vb Kiv nBqv‡Q †m‡nZz cÖK…Z c‡¶ ìLv¯—Kvix‡K 'discharge' Kiv nBqv‡Q|

21. In the aforesaid case there was no allegation brought against the writ petitioner and the BDR authority upon reason, otherwise than allegation or stigma, formed the opinion that the continuance of the service of that writ petitioner was inexpedient or not in the interest of the BDR and accordingly that writ petitioner was discharged. But the fact is quite different in the instant case. The Sector Commander upon finding the guilt of the petitioner erroneously recommended for exercising power under section 8 of the Ordinance

Annual Report-2010

43

and accordingly committed illegality and, as such, the ratio decidendi enunciated in the aforesaid case is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the order of discharge passed against the writ petitioner cannot be sustained.

22. But the question remains whether the petitioner could be reinstated in the service. It appears that by filing Annexure-E before the Director General, Bangladesh Rifles, the petitioner has accepted his discharge from the service as he has prayed for changing the "discharge from service" into "Immature retirement" under the provision of section 8 of the Bangladesh Rifles (Special. Provision) Ordinance 1976. Admittedly, the writ petitioner has served the BDR for 15 years two months and the BDR authority was satisfied with his performance as a rifleman and also in his extra curricular activity, specially in the religious affairs. The allegation brought against him, since not been proved before the BDR authority under a proper proceeding, the writ petitioner is entitled to the alternative option provided in section 8 of the ordnance i.e. change of his discharge from service into Immature retirement. Since the BDR authority has not followed the proceeding as laid down in section 6 of the said ordinance, and the petitioner after accepting the order prayed for a change to the second option of section 8 of the ordinance this Court finds that the writ petitioner is entitled to the second option i.e. the Immature

retirement instead of discharge from the services under the order as disclosed in Annexure-C, the certificate issued by the sector commander BDR Rifles Battalion, Rangpur on 1-10-2001 and accordingly the writ petitioner is entitled to a direction to be given against the respondent to that extent.

23. In view of the discussion and reasonings as above, since the Rule has not been issued in the terms as observed by this Court, this Courts is inclined to dispose of the Rule in the terms that the discharge order passed against the writ petitioner through Annexure-C is required to be modified to Immature retirement on and from the date of passing of the same as disclosed in Annexure-C.

24. In the result, the Rule is disposed of. The discharge of the writ petitioner from the service .of the BDR, as disclosed in Annexure-C, is hereby declared to have been issued without lawful authority. The respondent No. 2 is directed to modify the discharge order passed against the writ petitioner, into immature retirement and to pay his all retirement benefits as he is entitled under the law prevailing upto date.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (July, 2009)

Annual Report-2010

44

HIGH COURT DIVISION


AFM Abdur Rahman JSM Emdadul Hoque J

Khabiruddin Ahmed .................................................................................PetitionervsGovernment of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others ....................................................................... Respondents

November 9th, 2008

Judgment

SM Emdadul Hoque J : 1. This Rule at the instance of the petitioner Khabiruddin Ahmed is directed against the respondents to show cause as to why the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion should not be declared to have been taken without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect and why a direction should not he given upon them to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director in Genera! Administrative Cadre of Bangladesh Water Development Board as per provision of Rules applicable to his service.

2. The short facts of the case of the petitioner, is that, he was appointed as Security Supervisor of Bangladesh Water Development Board by the office order dated 27-4-1981. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Zonal Intelligence Officer by Office Order dated 8-2-1986. While he was serving in that capacity with full satisfaction of all concerned he was again promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Security and Intelligence} upon recommendation of the Selection Committee vide Memo No.327-Paubo (Kop)/B-2/Pa-4/90 dated 26-9-1974 and since then he has been serving in the said post with full

satisfaction of all concerned. The further case of the petitioner is that he passed HSC examination in the year 1979 and joined the service of the respondent authority and his service was guided under the Bangladesh Water Development Board (Employees) Service Rules, 1982. As per provision of Rule 20(2) of the said Rules, post of Executive Engineer, Deputy Director and other equivalent ranks will be filled up by promotion from the immediate lower cadre. In the said Rule no bar of educational qualification for promotion of an Assistant Director to the post of Deputy Director lies, in as much as according to Rule 2 l(b) merit-rum-seniority is the sole criteria for promotion to the higher post Subsequently, the authority by their Board meeting dated 16-11-2002 incumbent the 4 cadres namely, Administration, Welfare, Public Relations and Security General Adminis- trative cadre and the draft seniority list of the Assistant Director in Administrative Cadre preferred by the Board vide Memo No. 73-Paubo (Sochi)/ Administrative-2 dated 8-3-2003 and the same was prepared finally and accordingly, published the Seniority List and petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 44 of the said seniority list. By office order dated 27-10-1979 an opportunity was given to the Non-Graduate Departmental candidates for promotion to the post of Deputy

Annual Report-2010

45

Director vide office memo No.210-WDB (Sect)/Bang-11/ Lac-29/77 dated 27-10-1979. The Bangladesh Water Develop- ment Board (Employees) Service Rules, 1982 was made by the Government in exercise of power conferred by Article 33 of the Bangladesh Water and Power Development Boards Order, 1972 (PO 59 of 1972) and the said Rules is existing and enforceable till today. In the meantime Bangladesh Water Develop- ment Board Act, 2000 came into force by repealing the PO 59 of 1972. But no services regulation of the Employees of Water Development Board has been approved/made by the authority. For determining and fixing quota for appointment and promotion of Class 1 and 2 posts and also qualification for appointment of the said post a schedule (13 pages) was approved by the Board as an ad-interim arrangement and in serial No.72 of the said schedule educational qualification of the Departmental candidate has been imposed that they should have Graduation Degree and since the petitioner is non-graduate he has been excluded for promotion but no service regulation was made finally by which the petitioner's right has been deprived by the respondent. The further case of the petitioner is, that in the meantime on 4-6-2000, three colleagues of the petitioner namely, (1) Awalad Hos-sain (2) Serajuddin Ahmed and (3} Khandakar Nurul Islam who are in the same Cadre were promoted to the post of Deputy Director by the Water Development Board upon recommendation of the Ministry of Water and Resources by relaxing their educational qualification, whereas they have only SSC, I.Com and HSC Degree respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application to the Director General of the Board through proper channel on 16-4-2004 for giving him promotion to the post of Deputy Director in considering his merit-cum seniority as per Service Rules, 1982.

After receiving of the said application the Director of Personnel sent a memo to the Director General on 16-6-2004 for giving promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director by relaxing his educational qualification and in considering his merit-cum-seniority as per Service Rules, 1982. But without considering the said prayer of the petitioner the Board sent a letter to the respondent No. 1 on 26-6-2004 to give decision for relaxation of the educational qualification of the petitioner for giving him promotion to the post of Deputy Director. While sending the same to the respondent No.3 who did not consider the said prayer of the petitioner as per Rules 20(2) and 21(b) of the Service Rules, 1982 which he was required to consider as per said Rules. Thereafter, on receipt of the said letter the respondent No.l mentioned that the schedule made in the year 1998 was on temporary basis and same is not enforceable now and the Service Rules, 1982 does not provide any educational qualification and by the same letter respondent No.3 was requested to inform them under what Rules the service of the petitioner is being guided After receipt, of the said letter the Board sent a reply to the respondent No.1 on 7-8-2004 in mentioning that the service of the petitioner is guided by the existing Service Rules, 1982 and since no educational qualification has been mentioned in the Service Rules they have adopted the office order in 1998 as an ad interim and temporary arrangement till a Service Regulation is made and published finally. In the meantime, respondent No.l by its Memo dated 22-12-2004 asked the respondent No.2 to submit tile list where cases were considered by relaxation of educational qualification. But without considering the prayer of the petitioner for giving him promotion to the post of Deputy Director as per Rules 20(2),

Annual Report-2010

46

21(b) of the Rules, 1982, respondent No.2 replied on 8-1-2005, stating that in the meantime educational qualification has been relaxed for 3 candidates who are colleagues of the petitioner and one Mr. Rafiuddin Ahmed whose name was appearing at serial No.45 of the seniority list of Assistant Director on 28-6-2000 and 28-6-2004. For which the petitioner submitted another application to the respondent No.2 through propel channel on 6-11-2004 for giving him promotion to the post of Deputy Director as per Rules 20 and 21 of the Service Rules. 1982. But the respondent No.2 without considering the said prayer of the petitioner, by its office order dated 27-12-2004 gave promotion to the juniors to the petitioner named (1) Anwar Zahid and (2) Mun-shi Enarnui Haque whose names were appearing at serial Nos.46 and 47 of the said seniority list which is a clear discrimination done by the respondents, for which the petitioner through his lawyer sent a notice for demanding justice to the respondent Nos. 2-5 but with no result.

3. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file the instant writ petition and obtained the Rule.

4. The Rule was contested by the respondent Nos. 2-5 through their lawyer Mr Md Zainal Abedin by filing affidavit-in-opposition and their, inter alia, case is that the government has already approved a new modern Service Rules which is going to be commenced soon and, as such, BWDB (Employee) Service Rules, 1982 is no longer valid in its original form, as such, the provisions of Rules 20(2) and 2I(b) of BWDB (Employees) Service Rules, 1982 is no more legally enforceable. In the meantime, a series of changes have been made in the said Rules, Regulations, for which a separate Modern Service Rules has been

prepared. Further mentioned that BWDB (Employees) Service Rules, 1982 became unable to cope with the changes and so new separate Modern, Service Rules which has been proposed accordingly, and by following the said proposed Rules the promotion has been given, and in the said interim Service Rules including educational qualification for promotion of the employees since the petitioner has no graduation degree so the authority cannot consider has promotion case. Thus the Rule is to be discharged.

5. Mr Md Oziullah, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, placing before us the writ petition and the annexures thereof, submits that the petitioners service is guided under the Water Development Board (Employee) Service Rules, 1982 and according to Ruies 20(2) and 21(b) the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director. He further submits that the respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director by violating the Rules 20(2) and 21(b) of the Service Rules, 1982 and the respondents are under obligation to give promotion to the petitioner under the said Rules but the respondents authority without considering the existing Service Rules, 1982 refused to give promotion to the petitioner whereas the respondents authority is liable to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director as per Rules 20(2) and 2 ] (b). The learned Advocate further submits that according to Rules 20(2) and 21(b) of the said Service Rules, 1982, the respondents authority should have considered the prayer of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post but the authority sent the matter to the respondent No. I for relaxation of his educational qualification which is a malafide action of the respondent authority to deprive him from his

Annual Report-2010

47

promotion which action of the respondents is illegal and without lawful authority. He further submits that the proposed Service Rules dated 23-2-1998 is not Service Rule which is only an administrative office order which has no legal force of law whereas the Service Rules, 1982 is exislent which was made in exercising the power conferred by Article 33 of PO 59 of 1972 by which the service of the employees of Water Development Board is guided and controlled and hence, it prevails over the administrative office order dated 23-2-1998. Mr Oziullah further submits that the respondent authority did not give promotion to the petitioner as a Deputy Director by following the provision of Service Rules, 1982 whereas in the meantime 3 employees who were junior to the petitioner have been already given promotion by the respondent No. 1 which is a clear discrimination. In support of his argument, he referred the case of Abdur Razzaque Zoarder vs Government of Bangladesh reported in 58 DLR 245 and the case of Udayan Garments (Pvt) Ltd vs Bangladesh; reported in 59 DLR 615. He also referred an unreported judgment in Writ Petition No. 9085 of 2006.

6. Mr Md Zainul Abedin, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2-5, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, submits that the respondents government has already approved an interim of schedule for appointment and promotion of the Employees of BWDB instead of BWDB (Employee) Service Rules, 1982 and the Rules 20(2) and 21(b) of BWDB (Employees) Service Rules, 1982 has no implication for promotion of the petitioner. He further submits that the proposed Service Rules imposed educational qualification and the petitioner has no graduation degree for which the respondents authority did not consider the matter of the

petitioner, as such, he prayed for discharging the Rule.

7. We have heard the learned Advocates of both the sides, perused the writ petition, Affidavit-in-Opposition and the annexures thereof. In the instant writ petition admittedly, the petitioner is the Assistant Director of the PWD since 26-9-1994; the petitioner's service is guided by the Bangladesh Water Development Board (Employees) Service Rules, 1982 in which the petitioner submitted application to the concerned authority to give him promotion accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 after considering the prayer of the petitioner sent their recommendation to the Board. But the Board of BWDB did not consider the said application of the petitioner. It also appears to us that in the meantime, 3 officers who were junior to the petitioner already have been given promotion under the Rules, 1982, whereas the matter of the petitioner was not considered with a malafide intention by showing that a proposed service rules has been enunciated and the said rules provides educational qualification and since the petitioner has no graduation degree his prayer has not been considered by the respondent

Board. It is admitted that the proposed Service Rules is not finalised for which the said proposed Rules has no legal force and Bangladesh Water Develop- ment Board (Employees) Service Rules, 1982 is existent and Rule 20(2) of the said Rules provides the criteria for promotion. The said Rule 20 (2) runs as follows :

"20. Promotion in certain cadres-(1) Posts in the cadre of Chief Engineers, Additional Chief Engineers and Superin- tending Engineers and Directors, Additional Directors and posts with equivalent pay scales and such other

Annual Report-2010

48

posts as may be specifically notified as such by the Board, from time to time, shall be treated as selection posts and shall be filled in by promotion from the immediate lower cadre

(2) Posts in the cadre of Executive Engineers, Deputy Directors and other equivalent ranks may be filled in by promotion from the immediate lower cadre.

(3) Nothing in this Rule shall affect the powers of the Board to fill in, special cases, any post by appointing thereto any person on contract or on deputation from Government service.

8. The Rule 21 provides the criteria for promotion which runs as follows:

21. Criteria for promotion-promotion from a lower post to a higher post shall be based on the following criteria, namely,

(a) for promotion to selection posts, outstanding merit shall be the sole criterion, seniority in the cadre being taken into consideration in the cases of indistinguishable merit only;

(b) for promotion to other posts merit-cum-seniority shall be the sole criterion

9. According to the aforesaid Rules, post of Executive Engineer, Deputy Directors and equivalent ranks, may be filled up by promotion from the immediate lower cadre holder and Rule 21(b) provides that for promotion of the claimed posts merit-cum-seniority shall be the sole criterion. In the case of Md Hematul Islam vs Government of Bangladesh in Writ Petition 9085 of 2006 where the said petitioner challenged the discriminatory action of the respondent and the proposed Rules by which the promotion of the said employee has been considered. In the said case, a Division Bench of the High Court Division after considering the

matter of the said petitioner clearly observed that the Rules of Bangladesh Water Development (Employees) Service Rules 1982 is applicable to the petitioner for promotion. And in the instant ease, the petitioner is on the same footing.

10. It is admitted that the petitioner is the Assistant Deputy Director of the respondent since 2001 for which he has legitimate expectation that his promotion should be considered by the respondents by following the existing Rules, 1982 but the respondent without considering the said Rules did not give promotion to the petitioner. It also appears that 3 of the employees of the BWDB who were junior to the petitioner have been given promotion by the respondent but the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent which is a clear discrimination by which the right of the petitioner has been denied. So, we have no other alternative but to interfere with the matter of the petitioner.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussion above, it is our view that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion to the post of Deputy Director according to Rules 20(2) and 21(b) of the BWDB Service Rules, 1982. Thus we find merit in the Rule.

In the result; the Rule is made absolute however, without any order as to cost. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving promotion to the post of Deputy Director as per provision of Bangladesh Water Development Board (Employees) Service Rules. 1982.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (October, 2009)

Annual Report-2010

49

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

*Contempt Petition No. 181 of 2007

Syed Mahmud Hossain JQuamrul Islam Siddiqui J

SAH Monowar Ali and others ...................................................................PetitionersvsChairman, BJMC and others ............................................................. Respondents*

April 23rd, 2009

Judgment

Quamrul Islam Siddiqui J : In this application for Contempt under Article 108 of the Constitution, a Rule was issued calling upon the contemners-respondents to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court for violating the judgment and order dated 26-8-2003 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 7127,4560 and 4702 of 2002 and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2. The facts leading to the issuance of the Rule, in brief, are:

The petitioners were employees of the Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation (shortly, BJMC) and their services were terminated on 29-8-2002. 86 terminated employees had preferred Writ Petitions against the said order of termination. A Division Bench of this Court passed a common judgment on 26-8-2003 declaring the order of termination as illegal and void. Against the same judgment. BJMC preferred Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.354, 598 and 599 of 2004 which were dismissed. Thereafter, a review Petition being No.III of 2005 preferred against the judgment was also dismissed on

30-11-2006. Accordingly, the judgment passed in Writ Petition Nos. 7127,4560 and 4702 of 2002 became final and binding on BJMC Subsequently, BJMC cancelled the order of termination and allowed the petitioners to join in their post. The legal consequence of the judgment was that the petitioners must be deemed to have never been terminated and that they were in service. Therefore they are entitled to all facilities including pay and other fringe benefits. The petitioners are also entitled to get the arrear salary during the period of termination. Accordingly, the petitioners requested the BJMC to pay them the arrear salary for the period they were kept out of service illegally. But BJMC did not pay their arrear salary. After the dismissal of the Review Petition on 30-11-2006, the petitioners again requested BJMC to pay their outstanding arrear salary for the period from 1-9-2002 till their reinstatement, but no action was taken. In such circumstances, the petitioners served notice demanding justice upon the respondents.

3. Respondents replied to the legal notice and stated that there was no specific direction from the Court to pay the arrear salary to the petitioners. Under such circumstances, the

Annual Report-2010

50

petitioners finding no other alternative preferred the present application under Article 108 of the Constitution to punish the respondents for deliberate violation of the judgment passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition Nos. 4560, 4702, 4618 and 4628 of 2002.

4. Respondent Nos. 1-3 entered appearance by filing affidavit-in-opposition controverting all the material statements made in the Contempt Petition. However, the case of respondent Nos. 1-3. in short, is that following the judgment of the High Court Division and the Appellate Division, the petitioners were re-instead to their services and that they were posted in different Mills and that they have been serving in those Mills. The petitioners are entitled to claim salary when they work. But they cannot claim salary for the period they did not work. There is no specific direction by the High Court Division to pay back salaries and fringe benefits to the petitioners and they also did not pray for that. There was no order in the judgment of the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 354. 598 and 599 of 2004 that the petitioners would be deemed to have been never terminated.

There was also no direction by the High

Court Division for giving the back

salaries and fringe benefits to the

petitioners from the date of termination

till their reinstatement. The respondents

have not flouted any order of the Court

nor showed least disregard to the

Court's order. For the reasons stated the

Rule is liable to be discharged with costs.

5. Mr Md Salahuddiu Dolon, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the respondents illegally terminated the petitioners from service and that the order of termination was declared illegal

by the High Court Division in several Writ Petitions. He further submits that in the judgment of the High Court Division it has been stated in no uncertain terms that the order of termination is illegal, void, unconstitutional and without lawful authority. He again submits that BJMC preferred Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division which were dismissed by the Appellate Division. He lastly submits that as the order of termination was declared illegal by the High Court Division and that as the judgment of the High Court Division was confirmed by the Appellate Division the petitioners should be deemed to have been continuing in service and that they are entitled to get all the arrear salaries, fringe benefits and other facilities.

6. Ms Rabia Bhuiyan, learned Advocate appearing for the contemners-respondent Nos.1-3, submits that following the judgment of the High Court Division and the Appellate Division the petitioners were reinstated to their service and that they have been serving in different Mills. She further submits that there is no specific direction in the judgment of the High Court Division for giving arrear salary to the petitioners. She again submits that as there was no specific direction

in the judgment of the High Court

Division, the petitioners were not

entitled to get the arrear salary, fringe

benefits and other facilities. She lastly

submits that the respondents do not

have intention to show any disregard to

the order of the Court and that in fact,

the respondents did not violate the

order of the Court.

7. We have perused the Contempt Petition, its Annexures, affidavit-in-opposition, its annexures and other connected papers.

Annual Report-2010

51

8. It is true that the petitioners were serving in different capacities under Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation (BJMC) and that at one point of time the respondents terminated them from service. Against that order of termination, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition Nos.7127, 4560 and 4702 of 2002 in the High Court Division which were made absolute.

9. Annexure-A is the copy of the judgment of the High Court Division. It appears from Annexure-A that a Division bench of this Court declared the order of termination as illegal and void. For proper appreciation, let us quote the order portion of the judgment which runs as follows :

"In light of the above, it is evident to this Court that the arbitrary decision by respondent No.l as to effect by respondent No.2 to issue wholesale termination letters is a clear manifestation of gross abuse of power and is thus without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Rule in each of the Writ Petitions before this Court is therefore, made absolute partially in terms of declaring the impugned orders dated 29-8-2002 issued by the respondent No.2 as having been made without legal authority and being unconstitutional and void as being in violation of the petitioner's rights under Articles 27, 29 and 31 of the Constitution."

10. Against the Judgment of the High Court Division the respondents preferred Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal before the Appellate Division. Annexure-B is the judgment of the Appellate Division passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.354 of 2004. In that judgment the Appellate Division observed as under:

"In the instant case from the materials on record it is seen that BJMC acted

illegally or for that matter Government in terminating the service of the writ petitioners did not act reasonably and fairly.

In the background of the discussions made herein above, we find no substance in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed."

11. From the above two judgments of the High Court Division and the Appellate Division, we find that the order of termination passed by the respondents was illegal. However, following the judgment of the High Court Division and the Appellate Division the respondents reinstated the petitioners to their service.

12. Now, the moot question is whether the respondents committed offence under the Contempt of Courts Act as they failed to give salary and other benefits to the petitioners for the period they were out of service because of the order of termination. In fact, there is no codified definition of Contempt of Courts. It has been observed in the case of Sudhir Chandra Roy Chowdhury, an Attorney (1952 CrLJ 666 (Cal High Court) (Special Branch) at page 670-673) AIR 1952 Cal 258/as under:

"It is extremely difficult to define the term contempt of court, generally, however, it may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice the parties litigating or their witnesses during litigation.......Speaking of the powers of a court to punish for contempt Oswald in his book "Contempt of Court, 3rd Ed., p.17 observes. "It should always be borne in mind in considering and dealing with contempt of court that it is an offence purely sui generis, and that is punishment involves in most

Annual Report-2010

52

cases and exceptional interference with the liberty of the subject, and that too by a method or process which would in no other case be permissible, or even tolerate....".

13. Similar observations were also made in the case of Md Salimullah Khan vs Slate 15 DLR (SC) 150.

14. In the case referred to above, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under :

"............................The categories of contempt are so manifold that it is not possible to attempt an exhaustive classification of what may or may not constitute a contempt, but generally speaking any conduct that tends to bring the administration of law by a Court into disrespect or to contumaciously disregard its process or to interfere with or prejudice parties or their witnesses during the litigation amounts to a contempt. But at the same time we must point out in the words of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the ease of Shamdasani vs King Emperor (1), which were re-emphasised in the recent case of Izuora vs Queen (2), that this power "Should be used sparingly and only in serious cases" and that Courts should not be either unduly touchy or over-astute in discovering new varieties of contempt, for, "its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised". It appears to us to he desirable, when considering whether a particular act amounts to a contempt or not, to balance on the one hand the effects it might have on the litigation with, on the other, the wider public interest of extending to the litigant public the freedom of conducting their litigations without being constantly under the threat of conviction for contempt and only if on the balance there is a benefit to the

public interest in the wider'' sense, this power should be utilised. Even otherwise, where normally some other adequate method is available for correcting the intransigence, recalcitrance or contumacy of a part or a witness or for compelling obedience to the orders of the Court, then this power should not be invoked.

...............................in a contempt proceeding a reprimand is a recognised mode of punishment where the offence is not grave. It is no less as formal and public a stigmatisation of an offence addressed by a Judge to a convicted person as the imposition of an insignificant sum as a fine or a detention for an insignificant period of time."

15. In the case of State of Pakistan vs Mehrajuddin, 11 DLR (SC) 260 the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as follows:

"It remains to consider the propriety of the proceedings in contempt commenced in two of these cases by the High Court. It is true that the usual method of enforcing a judgment granting an order of mandamus is by commitment for contempt, but such a mandamus must be of an absolute nature.

An order directing the reinstatement of a person in a great public Department is not one which can be executed on the instant. It involves a great many

considerations such as seniority,

suitability, salary, and treatment of the

period of absence, etc., which are exclusively within the competence of the

relevant executive authorities and can

only be decided by those authorities

after a good deal of examination and care, involving the exercise of discretion and judgment in regard to many complex matters. Therefore, an order directing the reinstatement of a person

Annual Report-2010

53

cannot be regarded as an absolute order of mandamus, non-compliance with which peremptorily be visited by a proceeding in contempt............

16. In the case of Dulal Chandra Bhar Sukumar Banerjee 1958 CrLJ 1163 it has been held as under:

"Court observed that if contempt is sought to be founded on a breach of a mandatory order, the same cannot be done unless it is shown that the mandatory order directed the alleged contemner to do a particular thing by a particular date or on a particular day aid that he had not carried out the direction."

17. In the above case, it has been further observed as under:

"The jurisdiction in contempt, as I have said before, is a very special jurisdiction and is certainly a jurisdiction which it is necessary for the superior Courts to haw and exercise whenever it is found that something has been done which tends to affect public confidence in the ability of the courts to enforce their order."

18. Another question is pertinent here, whether in a contempt proceeding Court is competent to issue necessary further consequential direction. In the case of Subhash Chandra Patiher Dr vs Leena Chakraborty, 1995 CrLJ at 715 (Cal) it has been observed that there could be no mistaking that in the contempt application Court is competent to issue necessary further consequential directions for enforcing its order. [Ref Iyer's Law on Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Revised by Sarinder K Pari Senior Advocate Delhi High Court, assisted by Board of Editors 3rd Edition 2007 190]

19. No proceedings for contempt can be founded on the alleged violation of an

order which is not clear and specific and which is by its own terms of a contingent character, the direction contained in it being dependent on certain other facts which are left undetermined by the order and remain to be determined, (emphasis supplied)

20. Now, let us turn to our case. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are to see whether the respondents committed any offence under the contempt of Courts Act as they failed to give the arrear salary, fringe benefits and other facilities to the petitioners during the period of their termination. It is true that the order of reanimation has been declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. As the termination of the petitioners was declared illegal and without lawful authority, legal interpretation would be that there was no order of termination in the eye of law and employment of the petitioners continued. If the employees could not render service during the period of termination, it is due to the action of the employers for which employees could not be refused payment of salary during that period.

Only if it can be shown that the

employees were gainfully employed

elsewhere during the period of

termination, they will not be entitled to

salary during that period as per the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

21. It is true that in the instant case

there is no clear and specific order for

giving the arrear salary, fringe benefit

and other benefits to the petitioners. But the facts remain that the employment of the petitioners continued. Considering this fact, we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to salary during the period they were out of job following the order of termination. Our this view finds support from the case of Secretary

Annual Report-2010

54

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10914 of 2007

Khondker Musa Khaled JMd. Azizul Haque J

Veena Khaleque and others .....................................................................PetitionersvsState ................................................................................................ Opposite Party

August 20rd, 2009

Judgment

Md Azizul Haque J: This Rule was issued under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the opposite parries to show cause as to why the proceedings of CR Case No.

227(1) of 2006 under section

406/420/109 of the Penal Code, now

pending in the Court of Magistrate,

cognizance court No. 3 Jamalpur,

should not be quashed and/or any

other order passed as this court may

seem fit and proper.

Ministry of Establishment vs AM Nurtamabi, reported in 2001 ELD (AD) 41 = 53 DLR (AD) 41. In the case referred to above the Appellate Division has held that the period of absence of Government servant on reinstatement in service after wrongful retirement shall he treated as a period spent on duty and he will be entitled to pay and allowances as admissible under clause (a) of the Rule. Clause (a) of Rule 72 speaks that in case of honourable acquittal the incumbent is entitled to full pay to which he would have been entitled if he had not been dismissed or removed or suspended. In that view of the matter the Administrative Appellate Tribunal rightly held that the respondent is entitled to the arrear pay and allowance.

22. However, as there is no specific direction for payment of arrear salary during the period of termination and as it involves certain questions requiring

adjudication, the employers cannot be said to have disobeyed the order of the Court in not paying the arrear salary to which, in our opinion, the employees are entitled.

23. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, we find that the contemners-respondents are not guilty of contempt of Court. However, having regard to the decision of the Appellate Division in the aforementioned case, 2001 BLD (AD) 41 = 53 DLR (AD) 41, we expect that the employer being a statutory corporation will pay the arrear salary to the employees immediately.

In the result, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (January, 2010)

Annual Report-2010

55

2. By the Rule issuing order dated 23-7-2007, all further proceeding of the said case were stayed till disposal of the Rule.

3. For the purpose of disposal of the Rule, relevant facts are that opposite party No. 1 Shadulla Mel Mamun as the complainant filed a petition of complaint dated 18-10-2006 with the averments, inter alia, that the accused petitioner No. 1 is the Country Director, accused petitioner No. 2 is the Team Leader and accused petitioner No. 3 is the Area Manager of the Intermediate Technology Development Group presently named as Practical Action Bangladesh, a Non-Government organisation (NGO) and he served in the (NGO) as a Research Associate at its Jamalpur district office during the period from 1-8-2002 to 30-11-2005 and on 30-8-05, he submitted bill vouchers claiming Taka 25,000 as transport allowance for 25 months at the rate of Taka 1000 per month, Taka 289948 as, cost for searching of a motor cycle and Taka 5,08,320 as overtime dues. But the accused persons without paying the amount to the complainant and in order to grab the same terminated him from service on 1-12-05. As usually when the complainant went to his office on 1-12-05, the accused petitioner No. 3 informed him that he was dismissed from service and the complainant then talked to the accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who also disclosed that he was terminated from service. On that very day i.e. 1-12-2005, he demanded his aforesaid dues from the accused petitioner No. 3, who asked him to make contact with accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the complainant made contact with them and he was assured that they would pay all the dues as the money had been kept with them. At last, on 8-8-06 the

complainant sent a registered letter to accused No. 1 demanding the aforesaid money but he did not give any reply. The accused petitioners themselves drew the money and misappropriated the same without paying to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant applied to the Chairman of Jamalpur Paurashava for getting justice who arranged a meeting in his office where in presence of leading persons, the accused petitioners conceded that they had drawn the said amount of money and kept with them and promised to pay the amount to the complainant within 15/20 days. Accordingly, on 23-9-2006 the complainant went to the office of the accused party and demanded the aforesaid money but the accused petitioner No. 3 after talking to the accused Nos. 1 and 2 refused to pay the said money-disclosing that he would not get the money as claimed and thereby the accused persons committed breach of trust by misappropriating the same.

4. On receiving the petition of complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under sections 406/420/109 of the Penal Code against the accused persons and issued summons against them. The accused petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 then surrendered before this court with an application under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail and they were granted ad-interim bail for a period of 6 months. The accused petitioner No. 3 voluntarily surrendered before the learned Magistrate, Cognizance Court No. 3, Jamalpur and obtained bail. Thereafter, the accused persons came to this court and filed the application under section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained the Rule.

Annual Report-2010

56

5. Mr Md Monjur Alam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that as per complaint, admittedly, there was master servant relationship between the accused party and the complainant, the service of complainant was contractual one, he was duly terminated from service, he was paid up all his salary and, as such, the proceedings of the case should be quashed. He further submits that the claim of money as transport and overtime allowance may give rise to a civil liability and not a criminal liability and, as such, the continuation of the proceedings of the above-mentioned case is a sheer abuse of process of Court which must be prevented by quashing the said proceedings. It is also submitted that the alleged money was in no manner entrusted to the accused petitioners by the complainant and, as such, question of commission of criminal breach of trust did not arise. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of deception or inducement of delivering the alleged money (property) to the accused persons by the complainant to attract the offence of cheating. Thus, it is submitted that the facts stated in the petition of complaint do not disclose the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust and consequently, the proceedings of the aforesaid CR case are liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, Mr Md Mamunur Rahman, learned Assistant Attorney-General appearing for the State, submits that the offence of cheating has been disclosed in the petition of complaint as the accused petitioners refused the payment of money in favour of the complainant. Thus, he submits that the proceedings of the aforesaid CR case against the accused petitioners should continue.

7. We have heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and perused the application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the petition of complaint. On a plain reading of the petition of complaint, we find that there is no allegation that the money claimed was ever entrusted to the accused petitioners by the complainant and, as such, we are of the view that the very ingredient of the offence of criminal breach of trust is totally absent in the petition of complaint. We do not also find any allegation that the accused persons ever induced the complainant to deliver the alleged money (property) to them and, as such, we are of the opinion that the offence of cheating has not also been disclosed. Admittedly, the relationship between the accused party and the complainant was that of master and servant under a contract namely, the appointment letter of the complainant, and even if the allegations made in the petition of complaint are taken as true, it creates a right accrued to the complainant in respect of the money claimed as his dues, charges etc and therefore, it would at best give rise to a civil liability and not a criminal liability.

8. A legal aspect of the matter may also be looked into. Out of a contract of service between the employer and employee, whatever its kind may be, if a sum of money as salary, allowance, emolument etc is due to the employee to be paid by the employer, the former has a right to get it from the latter, who owes it to the former, but this right is always a civil or statutory right to be enforceable in a Civil Court or a Labour Court or the like. In such a case, question of criminal liability docs not arise at all. Thus, we are of the view that the facts depicted in the petition of complaint do not disclose the offence

Annual Report-2010

57

HIGH COURT DIVISION(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

"Civil Revision No. 170 of 2002.

Md Azizul Haque J: Md. Azizul Haque J

Shefali Bala ........................................................................................... PetitionersvsKhalipur Pukurpara Registered Non-Government Primary School Managing Committee represented by its President and others ...... Opposite Parties*

July 2nd, 2009.

Judgment

1. This Rule was issued under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree dated 21-11-01 passed by the Joint District Judge in Other Appeal No. 60 of 2001 reversing those dated 30-4-2001 passed by the Assistant Judge-in-Charge, Baliadangi, Thakurgaon in Other Class Suit No. 4 of 2000 decreeing the suit should not be set aside and/or any other order-passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2. The petitioner as plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that her dismissal order dated 19-6-1997 from service was illegal, collusive and without jurisdiction, with a further declaration that she was still in service and for an order of mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendants should not restrain her from work and must give her salaries on the allegations, inter alia, that she was appointed as a Teacher of the Khalipur Pukurpara Registered Non-Government Primary School in Upazila Baliadangi, district Thakurgaon (hereinafter referred to as the school) on 3-1-92 and she joined the school on 5-1-92 by donating Taka 20,000. The

under sections 406/420/109 of the Penal Code or any other offence against the accused petitioners and therefore, allowing continuation of the proceedings in the above CR case will be a sheer abuse of process of court which should be prevented for the ends of justice. We thus find merit in the Rule.

9. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The proceedings of the GR Case No. 227(1) 2006, now pending in the Court of Magistrate, Second Class,

Cognisance Court No. 3, Jamalpur are hereby quashed.

10. The stay order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

Send a copy of this judgment to the court concerned at once for information and necessary action.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (November 2009)

Annual Report-2010

58

defendant Nos. 1 and 2 tried to appoint defendant No. 6 in place of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 created obstruction in plaintiffs signing the attendance register. The plaintiff was permitted to impart training from the PTI. The Assistant Thana Primary Education Officer (ATPEO) on 27-11-99 directed defendant No. 2'not to give the monthly allowance to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an objection to the defendant No. 7 on 13-8-97 and to the Deputy Commissioner, Thakurgaon on 25-5-98 in pursuance of which the Deputy Commissioner directed the Thana Primary Education Officer (TPEO) to enquire into the matter and submit a report. The TPEO did not file any report. The Deputy Commissioner then directed defendant No. 5 to inquire into the matier and submit a report, but the latter also did not obey the order of the former. Thereafter, the Thana Nirbahi Officer, Baliadangi (TNO) as per order of the Deputy Commissioner made an enquiry into the matter and submitted a report dated 28-12-98 stating that the plaintiff was not absent from school, but she was illegally dismissed from service and that the two resolutions taken by the Managing Committee of the School regarding the plaintiff were lost and subsequently two resolutions were created illegally. The defendant did not file any objection against the report of the TNO. The service of the plaintiff was confirmed on 3-1-94. The further case of the plaintiff was that on 6-3-96 when Bashir Uddin inspected the school, he found the plaintiff present in school. The plaintiff on 15-5-2002 requested the defendants Nos. 1 and2 to allow her to join the service but without success. Hence the suit.

3. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement

contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. Their-case was that the school was recognised on 4-1-1996 and since then no donation had been taken from anybody. The plaintiff was absent from school from September to December, 1996 and she was also absent from January to August, 1997 without leave. The ATPEO inspected the school on 23-3-97 and found the plaintiff absent. He again inspected the school on 3-5-97, 17-6-1997, 22-7-97 and 21-8-97 and the plaintiff was also found absent on those days. Thereafter, the plaintiff was given two letters dated 8-2-97 and 15-2-97 and she was dismissed from service as per decision taken by the Managing Committee. The TPEO on 22-7-97 visited the school and found a post of the teacher vacant and asked the Managing Committee to invite application for appointing a teacher against the said vacant post and accordingly, the defendant No. 2 gave a notice to that effect which was published in the daily newspaper on 18-8-97 and the defendant No. 6 was ultimately selected for that post and she was given appointment letter and she joined the post. Their further case was that order of dismissal of the plaintiff was legal and the suit was liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The learned Assistant Judge framed issues in the suit. Both the parties adduced evidence on the issues and the learned Assistant Judge having considered the cases of both the parties and evidence on record held that the plaintiff was not absent from school and she was illegally dismissed from her service. He also found that the dismissal order was illegal, inasmuch as the Managing Committee of the school without obtaining the prior approval from the Thana Primary Education Committee (shortly. TPEC)

Annual Report-2010

59

dismissed the plaintiff which was not sustainable in law. He also found that the plaintiff was entitled to get her back salaries and thus he decreed the suit.

5. Against the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant Judge, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 preferred Other Class Appeal No. 60 of 2001 in the Court of the District Judge, Thakurgaon which was heard and disposed of by the learned Joint District Judge, Second Court, Thakurgaon who allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff did not come to Court with clean hands and she was absent from school without the permission of the authority and she was working elsewhere illegally.

6. Being aggrieved by, dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred this Revision and obtained the Rule.

7. Mr Bivash Chandra Biswas, learned

Advocate assisted by Mr HM Borhan,

learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the petitioner, has made his submis-

sions. But no one appears on behalf of

the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 at the

time of hearing of" this revision.

8. It is by now well settled vide the

decisions held in the cases of

Safaruddin vs Faztul Hitq, 49 DLR (AD)

151 and Darasatuilah vs Manik Mondal

1984 BLD (AD) 234 = 16 DLR (AD) 88

that this Court can dispose of the

revision on merit in the absence of both the parties or either party.

9. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned judgment, judgment of the trial Court and the exhibited documents and submitted that the learned Joint District Judge committed an error of law in not considering the

relevant circular issued by the Primary Education Department providing mandatory provision that no teacher can be dismissed without the prior approval of the Thana Primary Education Committee. He further submits that this clearly shows non-appreciation of judicial mind of the learned Joint District Judge. He further submits that the decision of the learned Joint District Judge is based on surmise and conjecture. He ago submits that the findings of the learned Assistant Judge are based on legal evidence on record and the findings of the learned Joint District Judge are the products of misreading of the evidence and non appreciation of law. He further submits that the learned Assistant Judge rightly held that the ATPEO Md Khademul Islam, in order to appoint his Cousin Jesmin Akhter namely, .defendant No.6. as a teacher in place of the plaintiff, purposely inspected the school thrice in 1997, though normally the school is inspected once a year, and he influenced the defendant No.2 to issue a show cause notice on the plaintiff and to dismiss her from service on the ground of her absence. The learned Advocate further submits that the trial Court was right in finding that

the UNO enquired into the matter

physically and rightly found that the

plaintiff was never absent from school

and the relevant resolutions were taken

illegally and subsequently, a new

resolution book was created to replace

the earlier two resolutions regarding the

plaintiff to serve their purpose. He

further submits that the lower appellate

Court misread and misconstrued the

evidence on record and thereby

committed an error of law in passing

the impugned judgment and decree resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice. Thus, he submits that the judgment and decree

Annual Report-2010

60

of the lower appellate Court should be set aside and consequently, the Rule is fit to be made absolute.

10. I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate and gone through the plaint, written statement, judgments of the Courts below and evidence on record. It is admitted that the school was established in 1991 and got registration on 4-1-96 being No.4102/11. It is also admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as a teacher of the school on 3-1-92 and she was asked to join the school within 7 (seven) days and accordingly, she joined the school on 5-1-92. There is no dispute that the service of the plaintiff was confirmed.

11. On perusal of the evidence on record and judgment of the trial Court, it appears that the learned Assistant Judge, as per report dated 28-12-98, Exhibit 1, submitted by Md Abdullah-hel-Baki, TNO rightly found that the plaintiff was not absent from school, she became a victim of the circumstances and she was illegally dismissed from her service in order to make a scope for appointing defendant No.6 Jesmin Akhter, cousin of the ATPEO Md Khademul Islam as admitted by himself as DW 3, as a new teacher in her place and she was illegally dismissed without giving her

any show cause notice. It appears from

Exhibit 1, report of the TNO, that he

did not find relevant resolutions

regarding the plaintiff in the resolution

book that was called for by the learned Assistant Judge, who on the basis of

evidence, rightly held that the said two

resolutions were re-written

subsequently to justify the dismissal of the plaintiff. The learned Joint District Judge, it appears, reversed the findings of the trial Court but without assessing the evidence as has been done by the

trial Court referred to above and I find that the appellate Court's findings are based on non-reading of evidence, surmise and conjecture. Therefore, I must set aside the findings of the lower appellate Court though it is the final Court of fact. This view of mine is well supported by the decision held in the case Hussain Ahmed Chowdhury alias Ahmed Hussain Chowdhury vs Md Nurul Amin 1996 BID (AD) 31= 47 DLR (AD) 162. The said decision is that when there are misreading of evidence and non-consideration of some material evidence, it becomes incumbent on the revisional court to consider the same and to arrive at proper findings on the basis of the evidence on record and to finally dispose of the case.

12. It is also admitted that the plaintiff was dismissed by the Managing Committee without obtaining prior approval from the TPEC. Paragraph 3 of the Notification vide Memo No.

cÖvMwe/cÖkv-3/KwgwU/ 97/347 ZvwiL 09/11/97, MYcÖRvZš¿x evsjv‡`k miKvi, cÖv_wgK I MYwkv wefvM, evsjv‡`k mwPevjq, XvKv relates to the

responsibilities and duties of the Non-

Government Registered Primary School

Managing Committee. Paragraph 3.10

of the aforesaid notification dated 9-11-

97 runs as under :

ÒcÖavb wkKmn mnt wkK/ Kg©Pvix QzwU/k„sLjv welqK hveZxq wm×vš- MÖnY Z‡e ïiæ `Û cÖ`v‡bi †ÿ‡Î _vbv cÖv_wgK wkÿv KwgwUi Aby‡gv`b MÖnY Ki‡Z n‡e|Ó

13. The dismissal from service is no doubt, a major penalty. On a simple perusal of the above quoted provisions of the said circular, it is clear that the provisions are mandatory which provides that a teacher of a Non-Government Registered Primary School can be dismissed from service by the Managing Committee only after taking

Annual Report-2010

61

APPELLATE DIVISION

(Civil)

"Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2004.(From the judgment and order dated 30-4-2002 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 61 of 1998),

Md Fazlul Karim J: Md. Joynul Abedin JSAN Mominur Rahman J

GM, Postal Insurance and another ......................................................... AppellantsvsABM Abu Taher .................................................................................. Respondent*

Judgment

Md Joynul Abedin J: This appeal has arisen by leave from the judgment and order dated 30-4-2002 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 61 of 1998 allowing the appeal on contest.

2. The short fact is that the respondent instituted Administrative Tribunal Case

No. 47 of 1995 before the Administrative Tribunal, Dhaka alleging, inter alia, that he was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 3-1-1962 in the Postal Life Insurance and since then he discharged his duties honestly and sincerely. Later on he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 19-8-1968. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of

approval from the TPEC. Therefore, the penalty like dismissal of a teacher from service cannot be done by the Managing Committee of the School without the prior approval of the TPEC. It appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the learned Joint District Judge did not consider the aforesaid mandatory provision of the government notification and thereby he committed as error of law resulting in an error in the decision occasioning failure of justice and, as such, on this score alone the judgment of the lower appellate Court cannot be sustained in law. Thus, I find merit in the Rule. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the back salary as admittedly she did not render her services to the school since the date of her dismissal. Without rendering service for a long period of 7 (seven)

years, the plaintiff can hardly get the back salaries. So, the decree is fit to be 'modified to that effect.

14. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute but without any order as to costs. The judgment and decree dated 21-11-2001 passed by the Joint District Judge, Thakurgaon are hereby set aside and those dated 30-4-2001 passed by the Assistant Judge are hereby affirmed with the modification that the intervening period since the plaintiffs dismissal shall be treated to he special leave without pay and other benefits.

Send down the LC records accordingly.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (March 2010)

Annual Report-2010

62

Superintendent and was serving in that capacity to the satisfaction of the concerned authority. The appellant had to go home on account of resolving his land disputes and accordingly, he filed an application for leave from 3-4-1993 to 28-4-1993 and left the station. However, the appellant No. 2, the Regional Manager, Postal Life Insurance, Regional Office, Dhaka by his letter dated 11-4-1993 informed the respondent that his prayer for leave was refused and he asked him to join his duties. He however was not aware of the said instructions made in the said letter dated 11-4-1993. The respondent was under the impression that his leave petition would be allowed and no exception would be taken for his absence for those days. After joining in the Office, the respondent came to know that he was selected for a training course on the Management of Insurance Business. Accordingly, he went to Rajshahi for 7(seven) days training at the Rajshahi Postal Training Academy. In 1989, the respondent was attacked with "Jaundice" and he also suffered from various other ailments and as a result his health deteriorated. Upon the advice of the Doctor the respondent had to apply for casual leave on 16-5-1993,18-5-1993 to 20-5-1993 and 20-5-1993 to 30-5-1993 and thereafter he also prayed for earned leave from 6-6-1993 to 28-6-1993. While the respondent was enjoying his medical leave as per the advice of the doctor, the appellant No.2 by his letter dated 15-6-1993 informed the respondent that the leave as prayed for could not be granted and asked him to join his duties immediately without referring him to the Civil Surgeon. The respondent was again intimated by another letter dated 16-6-1993 of the appellant No.2 to remain on compulsory leave as per Rule 11(2) of the Government Servants (Discipline

and Appeal) Rules, 1985 until further orders although the said Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 11 of the said Rules was already omitted by SRO No.304-Law/89/EM (Reg-5)l-D/8S dated 13-3-1989.

3. Thereafter, a proceeding was started against the respondent for misconduct by letter dated 4-7-1993 issued by the appellant No. 2 as per Rule 3(6) of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 for unauthorised absence in the office. Consequently he was asked to show cause within 10 (ten) days as to why he should not be dismissed from service. On receipt of the said letter, the respondent submitted his reply on 28-7-1993 explaining his position stating that the charge of misconduct so framed against the respondent was not sustainable in law, inasmuch as it did not fall within the ambit of Rule 3(b) of the said Rules of 1985 and prayed for exoneration from the alleged charge of misconduct. But the authority was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent and ultimately, Mr Moklesur Rahman, Superintendent (Post Office), PMG Office, Dhaka Division, Dhaka was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to investigate the charge of misconduct by his memo dated 17-8-1983. But the inquiry officer without following the provision as laid down in Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 7 of the said Rules fixed the date of inquiry on 7-12-1993 and without affording any opportunity of self-defense to the respondent the inquiry was completed on the aforesaid date. No witness was present before the inquiry officer and the respondent was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the management. The inquiry officer however submitted his report on 22-1-1994 finding the respondent guilty of the charge. Thereafter the respondent received a second show cause notice on

Annual Report-2010

63

10-3-1998 to which the respondent replied on 28-3-1994. The appellant without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law applicable in the case most illegally and with malafide intention passed an order dated 18-5-1994 retiring the respondent from service. The respondent then filed a departmental appeal but the same was summarily dismissed.

4. The respondent therefore filed Administrative Tribunal Case No. 47 of 1995 which was contested by the appellants. The Administrative Tribunal on consideration of the materials on record allowed the case of the respondent by its judgment and order dated 8-7-1998. Hence, the appellant preferred appeal before Administrative Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed on contest by the judgment and order dated 30-4-2002. In this backdrop, the appellant filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1'384 of 2002 and this Court by its judgment and order dated 6-11-2002 dismissed the same as time-barred. This led the appellant to file civil review petition on the ground that the delay in filing the leave petition was unintentional and for reasons beyond their control.

5. Leave was granted to consider; (1) whether this Court erred in dismissing the leave petition by failing to condone the delay of 54 days in view of the fact

that the delay was explained by filing a

petition for condonation of delay stating

that it occurred due to reasons beyond

their control and it was unintentional,

inasmuch as the appellants took

adequate and reasonable steps for

movement of the case file for preferring

the leave petition before this Court and

(2) whether this Court erred in law in dismissing the leave petition despite the fact that the respondent framed definite

charges against the respondent for unauthorised absence without prior permission of the concerned authority rendering the respondent liable for compulsory retirement and the respondent having been proved guilty for such unauthorised absence on a proper departmental inquiry.

6. Mr Enayetur Rahim, the learned Additional Attorney-General for the appellants vehemently argues that the delay in filing the writ petition having been exhaustively explained this Court ought to have accepted the explanation as satisfactory and allowed the appeal by condoning the delay, moreso when the respondent was found guilty for unauthorised leave on proper departmental inquiry in accordance with law.

7. Mr Mahmudul Islam, the learned Advocate for the respondents, contends that the grounds canvassed in support of the review of the earlier judgment of this Court is no ground for review in law. He also submits that this Court acted in accordance with law in refusing to condone the delay, inasmuch as the grounds agitated for condoning the delay were not satisfactory.

8. This Court by its judgment dated 6-11-2002 dismissed the civil petition for leave to appeal filed by the respondent on the finding that the explanation offered seeking condonation of delay is totally unsatisfactory. A judgment pronounced by this Court is normally final and should not be readily disturbed or interfered with by resorting to the exercise of the power of review except in the manner provided by law. A party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose for rehearing and a fresh decision of the case and departure from that principle

Annual Report-2010

64

HIGH COURT DIVISION


Md Imman Ali J : Md. Ashfaqul Islam J

Abdul Latif Howlader and others ............................................................ Petitioners

Government of Bangladesh and others ................................................ Respondent*

January 21st, 2009

Judgment

Md Imman Ali J : 1. This Rule Nisi was issued upon an application filed under Article 102(2)(a)(i)-(ii) of the Constitution, calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned letter under Memo No.

ceg/k-2/eM-2/2002/798 dated 21-7-2007 (Annexure-F) issued by respondent No. 4 should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

2. The facts of the case, so far as are relevant for disposal of this Rule, are

is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character made it necessary to do so.

9. Review matters are governed and regulated by the provisions of Order XLVTI, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order XXVI of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh (Appellate Division) Rules, 1988. As a matter of practice and rules this Court proceeds to review a judgment pronounced earlier by it upon an application for review by an aggrieved party. Prior to hearing a review petition the Court has to be satisfied that grounds for review as mentioned in Order XXVI of the said Supreme Court Rules exists. Reference may be made in this regard to the case of Mahbubur Rahman Sikder vs Mojibur Rahman Sikder, 37 DLR (AD) 145.

10. It appears from the record that this Court dismissed the leave petition on the ground that delay in filing the same was not satisfactorily explained and the

order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was also not found to have been passed in due compliance of the relevant service rules. Grounds taken for review are not new and these grounds were agitated earlier by the respondent before this Court and the same were answered while dismissing the leave petition. The respondent by filing the review petition merely sought for rehearing of the matter which is not permissible in law. The contentions raised by Mr Mahmudul Islam therefore, appear to have good deal of force. We are of the view that this Court upon correct assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision. There is therefore, no warrant in law to interfere with the same.

The appeal is accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (August 2009)

Annual Report-2010

65

that the petitioners and 33 others were appointed as night guards and boat-men in a project of the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong on various dates in 1990, 1993, 1996 and 1997. When the project concluded the posts of the petitioners were transferred to the Revenue Budget vide Memo of the Ministry of Establishment. Memo No. mg/mIe¨/wUg-4(2) ceb-17/2001 dated 27-1-2002 (Annexure-B), on the condition that six of the posts would be transferred directly and 35 posts would be transferred temporarily on year-to-year basis on the abolition of certain existing posts specified in the said memo. It was mentioned in the said memo that approval of the Ministry of Finance was to be taken in due course and accordingly, their salaries were approved. In course of time, out of the 41 persons displaced by the termination of the Forest Resources Management Project, 22 posts were transferred to the Revenue Budget and 19 employees lost their jobs. One other displaced employee was absorbed into a vacant post of Jeep driver and another died. Subsequently, out of the remaining 17, apart from the seven petitioners and one other who has become insane, the remaining displaced employees were transferred, into vacant

posts of the same pay scale under the

revenue budget. The Bangladesh Forest

Research Institute. Chittagong has all

along recommended the transfer of the

remaining displaced employees into posts

of similar scale in the revenue budget.

However, by the impugned letter under

Memo No ceg/kv-2/eM-2/2002/796

dated 24-7-2007 (Annexure-F) respondent No. 1 intimated that there was no scope of transferring the remaining eight employees to similar vacant posts of the same pay scale within the revenue budget.

3- Mr Manzil Murshid, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners have been serving the respondents for a long time and have all along been waiting to receive the transfer letters in view of the decision of the Ministry of Establishment, which had taken a decision to transfer the petitioners to the revenue budget. The learned Advocate submits that admittedly, as will appear from the memo of the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong dated 28-9-2006, eight persons remained still as displaced employees of the, aforementioned project and that live out of the 17 displaced employees were earlier transferred to the revenue budget upon posts becoming vacant in spite of not fulfilling the requirement that they would only be transferred against abolished posts. By reference to the affidavit-in-opposition submitted on behalf of the respondent No.l. the learned Advocate submits that the Government is admitting that two boatmen, one night guard and one sweeper were appointed in 2004 in vacant posts of the revenue budget of the institute through examination conducted by the Divisional Selection Committee. He submits, that the petitioners are allowed the same footing and there are still 39 posts of the same scale as the petitioners vacant in the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong under the revenue budget and that four persons on the same footing admittedly having been transferred into the revenue budget without consideration of the application by the petitioners, there has occasioned discrimination and violation of the Constitution. By reference to the supplementary affidavit (Annexure-L), the learned Advocate points out that 39 posts in the 4th Class employee category remain vacant in the

Annual Report-2010

66

Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong and that the petitioners are adequately qualified for those posts. The learned Advocate points out that the petitioners received salary up to and including 2004 and they continued to work in their posts up to 2005, even without salary. The learned Advocate submits that union the petitioners' ease bas been put forward to the Ministry upon recommendation by the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong and since other displaced employees on the same footing have been transferred into the revenue budget overriding the conditions mentioned in the earlier memo of the Ministry of Establishment, the petitioners are still liable to be considered for transfer to the revenue budget as and when vacant posts arise. The learned Advocate submits that it is, therefore, illegal, arbitrary and capricious to say that there is no scope for transferring the petitioners into the revenue budget.

4. Mr Murshid farther refers to the decision of the minutes of the ECNEC meeting held on 31-12-2007 which quite clearly records the decision that steps must be taken to transfer the manpower of the completed project into

the revenue budget expeditiously

observing the existing rules and

regulations. The learned Advocate

submits that once the Ministry Esta-

blishment decided that the displaced

employees were to be absorbed in the

revenue budget, though conditioned

upon abolition of certain posts, it cannot

be said that there is no scope for

considering transfer of the petitioners to

the revenue budget. He submit that

since the Ministry has transferred at

least five of the displaced employees standing on the same footing as the petitioners into the revenue budget, it cannot be said that there in no scope for transferring the petitioners.

5. Mr Md Abdus Samad Kamul, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of respondent No.l submits that the petitioners were employed in a project winch has been completed and there is no vested right for them to be transferred to the revenue budget In this regard, he refers to the decision in the case of Government of Bangladesh vs Jahangir Alam. 12 BLC (AD) 163. the learned DAG submits that there are admittedly vacant posts, but the petitioners must qualify in their individual capacity upon fulfilling the required criteria in order to be employed in those posts. He submits that the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong has only recommended the petitioners to be transferred to the revenue budget purely on humanitarian grounds. He points out that out of the five persons who were transferred by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, four were selected through examination conducted have the Divisional Selection Committee. He sunbirds that the petitioners are entitled to apply for and compete in the vacant posts if any, and may be employed if they fulfill the required criteria. He submits that the project having been completed, the displaced employees have no right to be transferred to or be absorbed in the revenue posts.

6. We have Considered the submissions of the learned Advocates, perused the petition as well as the annexures thereto and the supplementary affidavits of the petitioners and the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1.

7. It is clear and admitted that the project in which the petitioners were engaged came to an end in the year 2001 and as a result 41 persons became displaced. It is apparent from

Annual Report-2010

67

the record that six persons were transferred to the revenue budget soon after the conclusion of the project on 27-1-2002 and it was decided that the remaining .35 would be transferred to the revenue budget upon abolition of certain particular posts as detailed in the memo of the Ministry of Establishment dated 27-1-2002. The fact that out of the 41 displaced persons, apart from the seven petitioners and one other person who has become insane, the remaining have been transferred to the revenue budget. It is also apparent from the memo dated 28-9-2006 of the Bangladesh Forest Research Institute, Chittagong that five displaced persons were transferred to the revenue budget directly into vacant posts. The respondent No. 1 in the affidavit-in-opposition has admitted that a driver was absorbed in a vacant poppet and two boatmen, one night guard and one sweeper were also absorbed into vacant posts upon qualifying in an examination set by the Divisional Selection Committee.

8. We bear in mind that initially the Ministry of Establishment decided vide Memo No mg/mIe¨/wUg-4(2)-ceg-17/2001 dated 27-1-2002 that the 35 remaining displaced employees would be transferred into the Revenue Budget upon abolition of certain specified and named posts. Hoverer, Subsequently five of the displaced employees have transferred to the revenue budget beyond the mandate of that memo directly into vacant posts of a similar scale. Therefore, it transpires that the transfer of those five persons had treated a disparity between them and the petitioners and the petitioners rightly claim that they have been

discriminated against. Since five displaced employees standing on the same footing as the petitioners have been transferred to the revenue budget upon qualifying in an examination set by the Divisional Selection Committee, the petitioners are equally eligible to be transferred to any vacant post upon sitting at an examination set by the Divisional Selection Committee. The learned Deputy Attorney-General does does deny the fact that there are existing 39 posts in the revenue budget of a similar scale as that of the petitioners and, therefore, we are of the view that the petitions are liable to be treated in the same way as has been done in the case of those five displaced employees of the same projects who have been transferred to the revenue budget upon sitting at on examination set by the Divisional Selection Committee.

9. In view of the above, we find merit in this Rule.

10. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs.

11. The respondent No.l is hereby directed to take steps to transfer the petitioners into vacant posts within the Revenue Budget within 2(two) months, subject to their qualifying in any examination that may be set by the Divisional Selection Committee and subject to there being vacant posts of similar scale available.

Let a copy of this judgment and order be transmitted at once.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (October 2009)

Annual Report-2010

68

HIGH COURT DIVISION(Criminal Revisions Jurisdiction)Criminal Revision Case No.811 of 1995.

Khondker Musa Khaled J Md Azizul Haque J

Barrister Mainul Hosein ............................................................. Accused-Petitioner

Md Ali Hossain and another .. ...................................................... Opposite Parties*

February 18th, 2010

Judgment

Md Azizul Hnquc J : This Rule, on an application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was issued calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the proceeding in Criminal Case No.l of 1994 under section 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereafter referred to as the Ordinance), pending in the Second Labour Court, Dhaka, should not be quashed and/or such other or further order or orders passed as this Court may seem fit and proper.

2. By the Rule issuing order dated 23-7-1995, all further proceedings of the said case were stayed.

3. The relevant facts found for disposal of the Rule are that the opposite party No.l Md Ali Hosain as complainant filed the aforesaid Criminal Case No.l of

1994 against the petitioner-accused

Barrister Mainul Hosein, Managing

Director/ Chairman, Editorial Board of

the New Nation Publications Ltd.

presently, New Nation Printing Press, 1 RK Mission Road, Dhaka under sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance in the Second Labour Court, Dhaka stating, inter alia, that he joined the service of the New Nation Publications Lid under the petitioner on 1-9-1978 on daily

basis and the accused party appointed him as Senior Correction Head of the New Nation Publications Ltd on regular basis under the regulation of Wage Board Award by office order dated 25-1-1979 with effect from 1-1-1979. His last salary was Taka 2,750 per month and he worked till 22-9-88. Since then, he was not allowed to work. He was neither dismissed nor terminated from service. Thus, he was compelled to file IRO Case No.8 of 1992 in the said Second Labour Court, Dhaka. After trial, the said case was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 26-10-1993 directing the petitioner to allow the complainant to join his post within 45 days from the date of judgment. The complainant on 14-11-1993, 15-11-1993, 20-11-1993, 21-11-1993 and 1-12-1993 went to the office of the petitioner to join his post and submitted the joining letter, but the latter did not receive his joining letter and allow him to join his service. The complainant then sent his joining letter by registered post on 5-12-1993 to the petitioner with a prayer to accept his joining letter and allow his to join his post. But the petitioner did not allow him to join his post and willfully violated the decision i.e. the order and direction of the Second Labour Court, and thereby committed the offence under sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance.

Annual Report-2010

69

4. On receipt of the complaint, learned Chairman of the Second Labour Court, Dhaka found printer facie case against the petitioner and issued process accordingly. The petitioner surrendered in the said Court and obtained bail. Thereafter, he failed a petition under section 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging him from the case. The Second Labour Court after hearing both the parties rejected the discharge prayer and framed charge against the petitioner under sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance by order dated 19-6-1995.

5. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come to this Court under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1 of 1994 and obtained the Rule and stay order.

6. Mr Hasan MS Azim, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has- submitted that admittedly, the New Nation Publications Lid was no longer in existence because of its winding up and therefore the implementation of the judgment and order dated 26-10-1993 of the Second Labour Court by way of reinstatement of the complainant in the service of the New Nation Publications Ltd was neither possible nor practicable. He has further submitted that the New Nation Printing Press is

not a Limited Company and it has

distinct legal entity of its own owned by

the Ittefaq Group of Publications Ltd

and it has no liability of the New Nation

Publications Ltd. He has further

submitted that a company in liquidation cannot reinstate its employee and as such, there was no willful failure on the part of the petitioner to implement the decision dated 26-11-1993 of the Second Labour Court. Thus he has submitted that the

facts alleged in the petition of complaint do not constitute the offence under sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance and as such, the initiation of the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1 of 1994 is totally illegal and misconceived and the same is liable to be quashed in order to prevent abuse of the process of Court.

7. On the other hand, Mr Abdur Razaque Khan, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.l complainant, has drawn our attention to the petition of complaint and the judgment dated 26-10-1993 of the IRO Case No.8 of 1992 and submitted that admittedly, the New Nation Publications Ltd was wound up and its liabilities devolved upon the New Nation Printing Press, that the petitioner by name and as Chairman of the Editorial Board of the daily Ittefaq/New Nation was the second party No.2 in the IRO Case No.8 of 1992 and he did not contest the case and he was categorically directed to reinstate the complainant and that in the petition of complaint the petitioner has been designated as the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the New Nation Publications presently, New Nation Printing Press. The learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 has Further submitted that "employer" in relation to establishment includes a successor as has been defined in section 2 (viii) (a) of the Ordinance and thus, the New Nation Printing Press being the successor of the New Nation Publications Ltd., the petitioner was bound to reinstate the complainant in his service and as he willfully failed to implement the decision of the Second Labour Court and breached the same vide judgment dated 26-10-1993, offences under sections. 54 and 55 of the Ordinance have been disclosed and as such, there is no reason to quash

Annual Report-2010

70

the proceeding of the Criminal Case N.I of 1994 as prayed for.

8. We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates and considered the grounds taken in the application under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and perused the documents annexed thereto.

9. Admittedly, the New Nation Publications Ltd has been liquidated. It is also admitted that the petitioner by name and designation as the Chairman, Editorial Board of the Daily Ittefaq/New Nation Publications was the second party No.2 in the IRO Case No. 8 of 1992 and the case was allowed against him by judgment dated 26-10-1993 and he was directed to reinstate the complainant in the New Nation Publications Ltd. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner did not reinstate the complainant in his service and thereby he failed to implement the decision of the Second Labour Court, Dhaka given by the judgment dated 26-10-1993 referred to above mentioned in

the petition of complaint. The petitioner

Mainul Hosain has been designated as

the Managing Director/Chairman of the

Editorial Board of the New Nation

Publications presently, New Nation

Printing Press 1, RK Mission Road,

Dhaka showing that the liabilities of the

New Nation Publications Ltd devolved

upon the New Nation Printing Press.

The term "Employer" has been defined

in section 2 (vii)(a) of the Ordinance. As

per given definition, "Employer", in

relation to an establishment means any

person or body of persons, whether

incorporated or not who or which

employs workmen in the establishment

under a contract of employment and

includes an heir, successor or assign,

as the case may be, or such person or body as aforesaid.

10. The trial Court framed charge against the petitioner holding that the New Nation Printing Press in the successor establishment of the New Nation Publications Ltd. which is well covered by the definition of the "employer" referred to above. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the New Nation Printing Press is not the successor establishment of the New Nation Publications Ltd. This is a defence plea, which, as per well settled principle, is to be decided by evidence before the trial Court and it is not at all a ground for quashment.

11. In view of the discussion made above, we have considered the petition of complaint and found that there is clear allegation that the petitioner willfully failed to implement the decision of the Second Labour Court, Dhaka vide judgment dated 26-10-1993 passed in the IRO Case No.8 of 1992 by not reinstating the complainant in his service. The said judgment is binding upon the petitioner and the allegation is that he committed breach of the decision of the Court. Thus, we find that the facts narrated in the petition of complaint constitute the offence under sections 54 and 55 of the Ordinance and, as such, there is no reason to quash the proceeding of the Criminal Case No. 1 of 1994. So, we find no merit in the Rule and it is liable to be discharged.

12. In the result, the Rule is discharged and the stay order dated 23-7-1995 stands vacated. The Second Labour Court, Dhaka shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Send a copy of this judgment and order to the Court concerned for information and necessary action.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (March 2010)

Annual Report-2010

71

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(Civil)Civil Appeal No. 249 of 2003

Md Fazlul Karim JMd Joynul Abedin JSAN Mominur Rahman J

University of Dhaka and others .............................................................. Appellantsvs Md Jalal Uddin Chowdhury and others ............................................. Respondents*

March 17th, 2009

Judgment

Md Fazlul Karim J : The appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-11-2000 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 4786 of 1999 making the Rule absolute.

(From the judgment and order dated the 23rd day of November, 2000 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 4786 of 999).

2. The facts involved in the case, in short, are that the respondent No. 1 as petitioner upon obtaining Master Decree was appointed as Lecturer of Dhaka City College in the Department of Islamic History. Subsequently, in response to an advertisement made by the Dhaka University he applied for the post of Lecturer in the Department of Islamic History and Culture; out of 10 applicants the relevant committee recommended the names of 3 applicants including the respondent for the said post. At that time one Dr Ibrahim, Associate Professor of Department of Islamic History, made a frivolous objection regarding the respondent No. 1 on appointment. Thereafter, selection committee on the basis of C and D Committee selected the respondent No. 1 in the post of

Lecturer and referred the matter to the Syndicate for taking final decision regarding his appointment in view of the complaint made by an Associate Professor. The Syndicate formed an inquiry committee but failed to submit any report within the stipulated time. As a result, the Syndicate formed another committee, which after discussion, took the view that the allegation of adopting unfair means in the subsidiary examination against the respondent would not be deemed to be a bar for his appointment and accordingly, recommended the respondent for appointment and exonerated him from the complaint made by said Dr Ibrahim, an Associate Professor. Thereafter, the appointment letter was issued. On receipt of the appointment letter the respondent No. 1 resigned from the post of Lecturer of Dhaka City College and submitted his joining letter with respondent No. 2 which was accepted. While the respondent No. I was serving as a Lecturer in the University, the respondent No. 2 on the basis of news published in the newspaper formed another committee for further inquiry. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was served with a show cause notice to which the respondent No. 1 replied, then a new inquiry committee was

Annual Report-2010

72

formed by the Syndicate and the said committee served another show cause notice upon the respondent No. 1 to which he replied. The respondent No. 1 was then asked not to participate in Departmental function till disposal of the inquiry. The inquiry committee gave a report and an opinion regarding his appointment and forwarded the same to the Syndicate to take a final decision. He then received impugned letter issued by the respondent No. 2 stating, inter alia, that the service of the respondent No. 1 was no longer required i.e. his service has been terminated in accordance with the appointment letter.

3. Leave was granted to consider the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Article 52 of the Dhaka University Order, 1973 (President's Order 11 of 1973) provides that:

"52(1)-An appeal against the order of any officer or authority of the University affecting any person or class of persons in the University may be made by petition to the Chancellor who shall send a copy on receipt of the petition thereof to the officer or authority concerned, and shall give such officer or authority an opportunity to show cause why the appeal should not be entertained. But the respondent No. 1 without invoking and exhausting the alternative forum of appeal as provided in the aforesaid Article 52 of the University Order, 1973, filed the writ petition and in view of the decision of the Appellate Division passed in the case of Controller of Examinations, University of Dhaka vs Mahinuddin reported in 44 DLR (AD) 305. the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy lies in an appeal to the Chancellor under Article 52 of PO 11 of 1973."

4. Dr Rafiqur Rahman, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants,

submitted that Article 52 of the Dhaka University Order, 1973 (President's order 11 of 1973) providing an appeal against the order of any officer or authority of the University affecting any person or class of persons in the University may be made by petition to the canceller who shall send a copy on receipt of the petition thereof to the officer or authority concerned, and shall give such officer or authority an opportunity to show cause as to why the appeal should not be entertained. But the respondent No. 1 without invoking and exhausting the alternative forum of appeal as provided in the aforesaid Article 52 of the University Order, 1973, filed the writ petition and in view of the decision of the Appellate Division passed in the case of Controller of Examinations, University of Dhaka vs Mahinuddin reported in 44 DLR (AD) 305, the instant writ petition is not maintainable and the remedy lies in appeal to the Chancellor under Article 52 of PO 11 of 1973. The learned Counsel further submitted that the High Court Division failed to take into consideration that the respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to file the writ petition in violation of procedure contained in the Dhaka University Order, 1973 (PO 11 of 1973). The learned Counsel also submitted that the High Court Division failed to take into consideration that as per clause-2 of the appointment letter dated 11-5-1997 of the respondent No. 1, appointing authority i.e. the University, reserves the legal right to terminate the service of the respondent No. 1 and the appellants by the impugned order terminated the service of the respondent No. 1 as per said clause-2 of the appointment letter of the respondent No. 1 and, as such, the judgment and order of the High Court Division is liable to be set aside for the ends of justice. The learned Counsel

Annual Report-2010

73

finally submitted that from the plain reading of the impugned order of termination it will be abundantly clear that the same is a simple order of termination simpliciter without any stigma and, as such, the judgment and order of the High Court Division is liable to be set aside for the ends of justice.

5. Dr Abul Bashar, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1, submitted that once a person is appointed as a Lecturer on being recommended by a legally constituted enquiry committee and the subsequent enquiry committee, being not a superior authority, has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the earlier committee; that the very constitution of the subsequent committee and all its activities are ultra vires and malafide and do not come within the purview of Article 53(3) of the Dhaka University Order, 1973; that an order of termination with stigma of misconduct or order of dismissal can only be made on the grounds as laid down in Article 56(3) of the Dhaka University Order, 1973 and a Tribunal must have been constituted in accordance with section 45(4) of the First Statutes of Dhaka University Order, 1973 but in the instant case the appellants had neither shown any grounds nor constituted any tribunal as per the relevant law. The learned Advocate further submitted that as per section 45(5) of the First Statutes of Dhaka University Order, 1973 an appeal lies to the Chancellor against any order passed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Tribunal but not against any order passed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the so-called enquiry committee and, as such, the ground taken by the appellants with regard- to the non-exhaustion of the alternative forum of appeal is not

tenable in the eye of law; that Article 52 of the Dhaka University Order, 1973 provides that the provision for appeal before the Chancellor against any order of an officer or authority of the University, which is not relevant in the instant matter. In fact, the relevant provision in the instant matter is provided in section 45(5) of the First Statutes of Dhaka University Order, 1973, which lays down that an appeal lies to the Chancellor against any order passed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Tribunal but no such, tribunal was set up by the appellants as per section 45(4) of the First Statutes of Dhaka University Order, 1973. The learned Advocate further submitted that the respondent No. 1 duly joined the post of Lecturer and performed his responsibilities without any fault, therefore, a legal right has been accrued to him and this right cannot be taken away in such an arbitrary manner. The learned Advocate finally submitted that the order of termination is not a termination simpliciter but it is with a stigma of misconduct and therefore, the impugned termination order does not come within the ambit of condition No. 2 of the appointment letter.

6. It appears that subsequent committee has no authority to review the earlier decision. It appears that the order of termination is not a termination simpliciter but is with stigma. From the argument of the learned Counsel it appears that the order of termination is malafide in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that once a person is appointed as Lecturer on being recommended by a legally constituted committee and the subsequent committee being not a superior authority cannot sit over and review the same. As the respondent No.

Annual Report-2010

74

1 had already joined the post and worked as Lecturer, a legal right has accrued to him and this right cannot be taken away in such an arbitrary manner. The decision reported in 44 DLR (AD) 305 has no manner of application in the attending facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The High Court Division held that-

"As we have already observed that subsequent committee has no authority to review the earlier decision. It appears that the order of termination, we find, is not a termination simpliciter but it is with stigma, so the argument of Mr. AJ Mohammad Ali is that the order of termination is malafide in view of the attending facts and circumstances of the case which cannot be ignored. The question of malafide is rather a disputed fact but what we find from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the argument of malafide is rather established and cannot be altogether brushed aside. It appears that once a person is appointed as Lecturer on being recommended by a legally constituted committee and the

subsequent committee being not a superior authority cannot sit over and review the same as we have already considered. Furthermore, the petitioner having joined the post and worked as such a legal right has accrued to him and this right cannot be taken away in such an arbitrary manner. We, therefore, find substance in the Rule and the order of termination of the petitioner is liable to be declared as illegal and without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be reinstated with all benefits of back wages and maintaining his seniority. The respondents are hereby directed to comply with the judgment of this court forthwith."

8. In view of the above, we find no substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Ed.

Source : The Dhaka Law Reports (April 2010)

Annual Report-2010

75

Annual Report-2010

76

DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

(In million)

1999 – 2000 2002-2003 2005 – 06 (*)

Major occupation

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

Professional, technical 1.19 0.37 1.57 1.32 0.40 1.72 1.74 0.49 2.23

Administrative, managerial 0.17 0.02 0.19 0.09 - 0.09 0.20 0.02 0.22

Clerical workers 1.08 0.13 1.21 1.34 0.18 1.52 0.87 0.14 1.02

Sales workers 5.32 0.44 5.76 6.26 0.29 6.55 6.48 0.23 6.71

Service workers 0.99 1.24 2.24 1.03 0.95 1.98 1.89 0.87 2.78

Agriculture, forestry & fisheries 15.58 3.77 19.34 16.99 5.77 22.76 9.68 1.81 22.93

Production & transport

labourers and others 9.68 1.81 11.49

Total 11.28 47.36

Source:

1999 – 06 (*)

Male Female Total Male Female Total

3.9 4.8 4.4 4.7

Administrative, managerial 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.5

Clerical workers 1.7 3.1 3.9 1.9 3.4 2.4 1.3 2.1

Sales workers 17.1 5.6 14.8 18.2 2.9 14.8 5.2 7.7 5.8

Service workers 3.2 15.7 5.7 3.0 9.7 4.5 18.0 2.1 14.2


Production & transport

labourers and others 21.7 24.4 22.3 21.6 22.8 21.9 26.8 16.0 24.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(* Provisional) indicates population 15 years and above as per Labour Force Survey 2005 – 06

Source: Labour Force Survey 1999 – 2000, 2002 – 03 and 2005-06 Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

2005

(In perce

vey 20

istic

34.48.98

8

06

44

occ

s popu

Surv

31.09 7

1

our F

ndi

0 2 5 0.3

4.1

otal Ma

200

y 2005 – 0–

stics.

(I

38 9.84 434.4898

4 7.458.67

onal) indicates po

our Force Sur

31.09

1.6.74

13.8 4.0 4.7 3.8

male Total

pation

Ma

0.5 3

9 – 2000, 20–

IBUTION OF

000

d 2005-06

LATION B

200

desh Burea

NOMIC A

Annual Report-2010

77

POPULATION AGED 15 YEARS AND ABOVE BY MAJOR INDUSTRY

(In million)

1999 – 2000 2002-2003 2005 – 06 (*)

Major Industry



Mining and quarrying 0.09 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.05

Manufacturing 2.33 1.39 3.72 2.64 1.71 4.34 3.93 1.29 5.22

Electricity, Gas and water 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.08

Construction 0.99 0.09 1.09 1.45 0.09 1.54 1.42 0.10 1.53

Trade, hotel and restaurant 5.63 0.50 6.15 6.42 0.25 6.67 7.37 0.45 7.82

Transport, storage & communication 3.02 3.91 0.07 3.98

real estate 0.13 0.75

1.74 0.38 2.12 2.13 0.55 0.57 2.55

services 2.62

Total 44.32 47.34

– 06

Source:

Male Female Total Male Female Female Total

50.8 68.1 48.1

Mining and quarrying 0.1 0.1 0.1

Manufacturing 9.8 10.9 11.5 11.0

Electricity, Gas and water 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2

Construction 3.2 1.2 2.8 4.2 1.0 3.5 4.0 0.9 3.2

Trade, hotel and restaurant 18.1 6.3 15.8 18.6 2.5 15.1 20.4 4.0 16.5

Transport, storage & communication 7.8 0.6 6.3 8.7 0.3 6.8 10.8 0.6 8.4

Finance & business services and real estate 1.1 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.3 0.9 1.7 1.1 1.6

Health, education, public administration & defense 5.6 4.8 5.4 6.1 5.6 6.0 5.5 5.1 5.4

Community and personal services 4.0 21.4 7.5 3.3 14.4 5.8 4.6 8.6 5.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(* Provisional) indicates population 15 years and above as per Labour Force Survey 2005 – 06 Source: Labour Force Survey 1999 – 2000, 2002 – 03 and 2005-06, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

20 0

n percent

40 0.39

2.

6.

0.

1.9

0.4

y

al) indi

o

36 0.05

al

pefen

9

0 2 3

7.5 1 7 6 17.

s

0.0 0.2

8 41

47 9 0

0 0.39 0.03 0.4 0

2.68 1

1.65 0

6.08 11.28

(In pe

2005 – –

2.43 0.05

s and 0.36 0 0

publicense

and personal

al) indicates

our Force Su

PO

Total Male

eries 51.9 49.8 58.7 51.8

0.3 1.0 0.4 0.2 0. 0 2

7. 17.6 9.5 17.

1.23

31.09

15 years and

– 2000, 2002 – –

N AGED 15 Y

1

2.92

9 38.98

s per Labour

2005-06, B

AND ABO

00

1.41

8 9.84

Survey 200

esh Bureau

Y MAJ

002-2

Annual Report-2010

78

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYED PERSON AGED 15 YEARS AND ABOVE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS,

RESIDENCE AND SEX

(In million)

National Urban Rural

Employment Status


Regular paid employee 5.25 1.32 6.57 2.62 0.89 3.50 2.63 0.43 3.06

Employer 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.01 0.09

Self-employed 18.06 1.79 19.85 3.88 0.08 4.67 14.18 0.99 15.17

Unpaid family worker 3.49 6.78 10.27 0.48 0.59 1.07 3.01 6.19 9.19

Irregular paid worker 0.78 0.16 0.95 0.23 0.04 0.26 0.55 0.13 0.68

Day labour (agri.) 4.79 0.28 5.07 0.23 0.02 0.25 4.57 0.26 4.83

Day labour (non agri.) 1.13 2.13 0.29 2.41

0.06 0.17 0.23

0.14 0.03 0.16

Others 0.19 0.42 0.12 0.29

Total 16.08 11.28 47.36 8.57 2.66 8.62 36.13

– 06

Source

National Urban

Male Female Total Female Total

9.6 5.0 8.5

Employer 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3

Self-employed 50.0 29.9 41.7 51.5 1.6 42.0

Unpaid family worker 9.7 60.1 21.7 5.6 22.3 9.5 11.0 71.8 25.5

Irregular paid worker 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.7 1.3 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.9

Day labour (agri.) 13.3 2.5 10.7 2.7 0.7 2.2 16.6 3.0 13.4

Day labour (non agri.) 8.5 4.0 7.5 11.3 6.1 10.1 7.7 3.3 6.6

Domestic worker/ maid servant 0.2 2.3 0.7 0.1 3.6 0.9 0.2 2.0 0.6

Paid/unpaid apprentice 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4

Others 0.6 1.6 0.8 0.7 2.4 1.1 0.6 1.4 0.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(* Provisional) indicates population 15 years and above as per Labour Force Survey 2005 – 06

Source: Labour Force Survey 1999 – 2000, 2002 – 03 and 2005-06, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

Ru

I

0

.24 0.0

0.06

11.

s.

27.

0.0

0

abour F

6

21 0.03

0

s p

S

ndic

0.1

1 42 0

0 3 0.3

e 33.3 31

otal Mal

t Sta

3.54 7 0

0.33 0.01 0 0

24 0.07 0.01 0.

.06 0.13 0.

1.22 2

.

YMENT ST

(In per

R

3. 0.45

erva 0.07 0.26

entice 0.21 0

al) indicates p

abour Force S

IBUTION O

ment Status

Female Tot M

e 14.6 11.7 13.9 30.5 3 3

0 0.3 3

15 years and

– 2000, 2002–

OYED PERSO

R

s per Labou

d 2005 - 06,

ED 15 YEA

ENCE AND

Survey 20

adesh Bure

D ABOVE

Annual Report-2010

79

Annual Report-2010

80

Sou

rce:

Mo

nth

ly S

tati

sti

cal

Bu

lleti

n,

Ban

gla

desh B

ureau

of

Sta

tisti

cs.

Annual Report-2010

81

AVERAGE DAILY WAGE RATES OF CONSTRUCTION LABOUR IN PRINCIPAL TOWNS

(Value in Taka)

Types of Labour Town 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008-09 2010

August September October

Mason (Skilled) Chittagong 210.00 221.50 240.75 270.83 300.00 300.00 300.00 Dhaka 210.83 228.00 250.92 286.33 300.00 300.00 300.00 Khulna 175.00 188.00 206.42 254.00 290.00 290.00 290.00 Narayanganj 209.16 225.00 247.08 250.00 350.00 350.00 350.00 Rajshahi 170.00 184.50 204.92 230.58 270.00 270.00 272.00 Rangpur 175.00 192.08 248.18 250.00 280.00 280.00 280.00 Sylhet 185.00 200.00 - 300.00 - - 300.00

Helper to Mason Chittagong 106.00 118.00 136.57 216.67 200.00 200.00 250.00 Dhaka 112.25 131.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 Khulna 90.00 98.67 116.57 180.00 180.00 180.00 250.00 Narayanganj 112.10 121.25 151.66 190.83 250.00 250.00 250.00 Rajshahi 90.00 96.83 109.17 186.25 150.00 150.00 175.00 Rangpur 180.00 150.00 160.00 220.00 182.50 - - -

Carpenter (Skilled) 350.00 350.00 300.00 300.00 150.00 260.00 260.00 200.00 250.00 265.83 350.00 360.00 128.00 143.33 165.83 200.00 210.00 152.00 153.33 170.00 210.00 200.00 185.45 - -

400.00 350.00 310.00 350.00 360.00 230.00 230.00 350.00 350.00 - - -

Painter 400.00 350.00 290.00 200.00 227.00 234.17 256.67 300.00 127.00 150.00 172.50 250.00 250.00 176.00 160.91 195.00 300.00 300.00 200.00 - - -

Electrician 400.00 800.00 350.00 350.00 Khulna 250.00 250.00 260.00 392.50 350.00 350.00 350.00 Rajshahi 127.00 200.00 187.50 221.67 225.00 225.00 225.00 Rangpur 181.00 182.28 213.18 248.33 300.00 300.00 300.00 Sylhet 185.45 200.00 - 300.00 - - -

Brick Breaking 1" size Chittagong 875.00 775.00 720.83 837.50 900.00 900.00 900.00khua per 100 cft Dhaka 983.33 800.00 1020.00 1066.67 1000.00 1000.00 1025.00 Khulna 622.00 617.25 579.17 670.83 650.00 625.00 625.00 Narayanganj 953.33 800.00 1000.00 920.83 1000.00 1000.00 1000.00 Rajshahi 490.00 733.33 820.83 991.67 900.00 900.00 - Rangpur 670.00 714.55 758.18 1000.00 1100.00 1100.00 1100.00 Sylhet 120.00 800.00 - 800.00 - - -

Situ Mosaic per sft. Dhaka 18.83 25.82 25.00 25.83 25.00 25.00 -(fitting charge)

Glazed Tile per sft Dhaka 18.00 20.17 25.00 2 5.83 25.00 25.00 -(fitting charge)

Floor Tile Per sft Dhaka 18.00 20.17 25.00 25.83 25.00 25.00 - (fitting charge)

0 290.0300.

400.00

0.00 0

0 28117.50 2

300.0058

200

00 0

400.0

0

300 150.00

yanganj ajshahi

RangS

ter)anitar

hahu

258.3152.50

0 0

200.00

j

272.0181.67 2

t

Chittagong Dhak

325.00 4333 33

50300.00 Ra

5

0 280.00 310..83 287.00 300.00 3

50 226.92 260.00 0.00 350.00

200.00 200.00 200.

-

0 400.0350.00 300.00 350.00 230350.00

-

0 40 350.0

290.00

127.27

hittagong 226.00 haka 200.00 hulna 1

NarayangaRajshRa

anitary fitte

Nar 300.00Rajsha 00 250.00 Rangpur 248.33 300.00 Sylhet 185. 300.00

Chittagong 250.00 250.00 300.00 325.00 4200.00 258.33 272.00

0 50 70 0

gong 2a 20na 15anganj 20ahi 20pur 177t 185

agong 209a 20na 1

00.00

250.00 258.33 154.5250.00 200.00 178.75 200.00

217.50 218.33 57.08

220.8

0 310.400 333.325 200 296.600 211.68 250.

83 00 33

Source: Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

Annual Report-2010

82

AVERAGE WAGE RATES FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN BANGLADESH

(Nominal wages in Taka)

Industry Types of 2004-05 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008-09 2010

Labour August September October

Medium & Large Scale Industry

(i) Cotton Textile Skilled 129.67 129.67 129.67 164.89 228.25 253.25 255.00 256.00

Unskilled 109.94 109.94 109.94 120.53 156.46 176.50 176.75 177.50

(ii) Jute Textile Skilled 129.67 129.67 129.67 163.55 224.08 250.25 251.00 251.75

Unskilled 109.94 109.94 109.94 - 141.85 163.25 164.00 165.00

(iii) Match Skilled 129.67 129.67 129.67 158.98 210.83 234.25 234.75 235.25

Unskilled 109.94 109.94 109.94 117.81 142.31 159.00 - 159.75

(iv) Engineering (fitter) Skilled 245.17 262.38 280.06 304.96 329.44 349.25 350.00 351.00

Unskilled 142.71 146.00 164.67 192.46 216.90 230.25 230.25 231.00

(v) Edible Oils Skilled 123.56 126.50 163.34 145.69 226.13 246.25 246.25 247.00

Unskilled 104.48 107.67 120.29 185.91 172.50 185.25 185.50 186.76

(vi) Small & Cottage

Industry (weaver) Skilled 139.44 152.61 169.54 185.02 204.71 226.00 226.50 227.25

Unskilled - - - - - - - -

(vii) Construction Skilled 177.63 191.49 205.50 225.75 265.04 290.22 290.75 293.00

Unskilled 99.50 99.56 111.12 128.13 163.25 182.25 183.00 184.75

Source: Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.

Annual Report-2010

83

Misc Period & Foot- House goods & & wear fuel & hold health services lighting Equip 2003-04 136.19 141.31 133.822004-05 153.23 150.24 137.782005-06 164.21 165.42 143.252006-07 176.06 184.18 201.15 171.47 151.442007-08 193.54 206.79 185.66 211.01 174.86 166.692008-09 206.43 221.64 186.67 173.10 184.46 194.75 189.25 222.12 181.44 188.842009-10 221.53 240.55 196.84 181.29 191.49 215.04 199.22 234.09 192.44 208.402010-11 241.02 267.83 205.01 191.92 197.92 231.75 203.67 244.16 198.44 218.58

2010-11 July 229.55 251.59 200.65 184.71 195.70 221.65 201.35 237.57 196.84 211.24August 233.31 257.44 201.46 186.82 196.29 224.45 201.42 237.85 196.98 211.45September 236.53 262.23 202.29 188.95 196.38 227.00 201.49 239.18 197.17 212.49October 238.68 265.16 203.03 189.89 196.84 228.62 201.89 240.16 197.25 214.53November 238.89 265.22 203.43 190.16 197.02 231.03 202.36 240.37 197.38 215.57December 240.75 268.19 203.71 190.39 197.34 231.54 202.38 240.72 197.49 215.87January 242.48 270.44 204.88 191.96 197.61 233.05 203.17 242.24 198.97 219.44February 244.28 272.57 206.15 193.74 198.65 234.05 204.52 244.85 199.44 220.66March 245.97 274.99 206.65 194.09 199.09 234.31 205.03 245.96 199.61 221.35April 246.24 275.02 207.23 195.10 199.33 236.42 205.36 246.66 199.83 222.22May 246.39 273.95 209.24 197.48 199.93 238.55 207.37 253.82 200.03 226.28June 249.11 277.11 211.39 199.75 200.82 240.28 207.71 260.60 200.31 231.92

Source : Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

152.09 162.3

4.53 70 1

56 148165.7

6

51.21162.61 17

50158.08 14170 15

62.67 1796 19

7146.50 141.03 13 37.95 154.36 17158.08 147.14 142.15 141.43 143.18 162.67 179

156.56 148.35 152.02 151.21 16165 7 6.79 32 162.61 17

53

CONSUM RICE I

1995 – 96 –

TIONAL

WAGE RATE INDICES BY MAJOR SECTORS IN BANGLADESH

(Base: 1969 – 70 = 100)

Period General Nominal Indices

Agriculture Fishery Manufacturing Construction

2003-04 3111.00 2582.00 2775.00 3764.00 2669.002004-05 3293.00 2719.00 2957.00 4015.00 2758.002005-06 3906.00 2925.00 3133.00 4293.00 2889.002006-07 3779.00 3151.00 3332.00 4636.00 3135.002007-08 4227.00 3524.00 3669.00 5197.00 3549.002008-09 5025.65 4273.71 4236.49 6128.36 4311.312009-10(P) 5459.66 4832.49 4741.95 6536.03 4683.91

2010

January 5464.14 4838.92 4746.26 6541.48 4652.56February 5492.28 4878.23 4770.87 6561.60 4677.10March 5505.57 4902.32 4780.50 6572.99 4699.07April 5522.48 4943.73 4794.54 6579.26 4715.59May 5547.13 4968.21 4809.37 6614.89 4930.29June 5561.84 4985.37 4827.45 6620.28 4955.80July 5595.56 5026.58 4846.86 6663.54 4777.27August 5613.23 5054.74 4871.08 6669.92 4800.52September 5640.80 5101.41 4887.65 6693.13 4828.66October 5668.87 5149.51 4912.41 6711.10 4860.23

P = Provisional

Source: Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

Annual Report-2010

84

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX: ALL URBAN

(Base: 1995 – 96 = 100)

Food, Non- Clothing Gross Furniture Medical Transport Recreation Misc Period General Beverage food & Foot- rent House care & Education goods & & wear fuel & hold health services Tobacco lighting Equip expense

2003-04 142.54 149.60 135.80 136.37 122.56 138.61 147.08 172.02 134.10 137.012004-05 151.29 161.14 141.90 143.18 126.31 146.30 152.49 182.41 141.60 144.802005-06 161.39 174.18 149.20 148.72 131.07 155.49 156.47 192.53 157.05 152.622006-07 172.73 189.06 157.17 159.02 138.41 163.05 161.64 201.38 163.51 159.932007-08 189.65 213.73 166.69 170.51 147.54 188.92 170.90 209.84 167.16 173.162008-09 201.49 229.60 174.69 181.42 148.24 208.46 176.54 228.18 173.59 198.582009-10 216.98 252.21 183.40 190.76 152.58 233.48 189.38 238.37 180.85 217.992010-11 232.81 276.82 190.87 201.22 155.01 266.43 196.40 251.43 184.21 230.56

2010-11

July 224.12 263.50 186.59 194.29 154.10 245.19 192.25 243.37 183.30 223.71August 227.65 269.87 187.41 196.52 154.22 252.84 192.36 243.71 183.50 223.81September 229.60 273.01 188.23 198.51 154.33 256.90 192.51 245.71 183.59 224.04October 230.17 273.18 189.18 199.21 154.60 162.14 193.82 247.16 183.68 227.06November 230.56 273.29 189.84 199.85 154.66 266.68 195.29 247.53 183.83 229.69December 232.09 276.33 189.92 199.92 154.66 267.05 195.38 247.70 183.93 229.81January 234.33 279.97 190.84 201.85 155.23 268.47 196.27 249.12 184.37 230.42February 235.24 281.02 191.62 203.64 155.27 270.35 197.80 251.00 184.57 231.29March 236.25 282.23 192.42 203.78 155.60 270.57 199.45 254.19 184.73 232.50April 236.64 282.29 193.12 204.21 155.70 277.36 199.80 255.33 184.84 233.63May 237.05 281.65 194.54 205.43 155.80 279.15 200.47 261.04 184.95 238.03June 240.03 285.48 196.72 207.47 155.91 280.47 201.38 271.32 185.17 242.73


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX: ALL RURAL

(Base: 1995 – 96 = 100)

Food, Non- Clothing Gross Furniture Medical Transport Recreation Misc Period General Beverage food & Foot- rent House care & Education goods & & wear fuel & hold health services Tobacco lighting Equip expense

2003-04 144.46 145.22 143.18 136.21 141.79 137.67 157.35 170.28 144.28 132.51

2004-05 154.03 156.82 149.29 141.73 147.64 141.90 166.56 178.92 153.78 134.90

2005-06 165.37 168.77 159.59 148.19 160.63 149.45 175.03 191.31 168.85 139.40

2006-07 177.42 182.18 169.33 155.88 172.14 160.38 185.41 201.06 174.74 147.95

2007-08 195.14 203.93 180.19 162.08 185.85 174.31 191.72 211.49 178.03 164.03

2008-09 208.46 218.38 191.59 169.68 199.33 189.12 194.47 219.63 184.66 184.85

2009-10 223.39 235.76 202.36 177.40 207.47 207.48 203.27 232.19 197.23 204.47

2010-11 244.38 264.13 210.81 188.10 215.54 217.50 206.66 241.18 204.29 213.67

2010-11

July 231.78 246.70 206.42 180.78 212.78 211.98 205.09 235.19 202.40 206.12

August 235.63 252.33 207.23 182.83 213.56 212.79 205.14 235.45 202.52 206.37

September 239.38 257.80 208.06 185.02 213.65 214.72 205.18 236.50 202.75 207.75

October 242.18 261.87 208.72 186.06 214.18 214.86 205.21 237.28 202.82 209.38

November 242.31 261.90 209.01 186.18 214.42 216.39 205.26 237.43 202.94 209.77

December 244.30 264.85 209.37 186.47 214.87 216.96 205.26 237.85 203.06 210.14

January 245.83 266.53 210.64 187.90 215.01 218.51 206.01 239.41 204.96 214.93

February 247.99 269.10 212.11 189.67 216.47 219.14 207.28 242.32 205.54 216.29

March 249.96 272.01 212.49 190.11 216.95 219.42 207.32 242.58 205.72 216.77

April 250.18 272.04 213.02 191.36 217.24 219.61 207.64 243.10 205.98 217.54

May 250.23 270.79 215.28 194.21 218.05 221.88 210.20 250.86 206.22 221.45

June 252.84 273.67 217.42 196.58 219.26 223.78 210.31 256.20 206.53 227.48


Annual Report-2010

85

Documents

BEF Annual Report-2010.ai