bangladesh employers’ federation€¦ · md. munir hossain 05. mr. s. humayun kabir 06. mr. kedar...

1

Annual Report 2018

BANGLADESH EMPLOYERS’ FEDERATION

Office-Bearers as in December 2018

PRESIDENT

VICE-PRESIDENT

Mr. Kamran T. Rahman

Mr. Ardashir Kabir

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE(In alphabetical order)

Ordinary Members:

01. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed

02. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed

03. Mr. Miran Ali

04. Ms. Farzana Chowdhury

05. Mr. Selim Chowdhury

06. Ms. Rubana Huq

07. Mr. Syed Tanvir Husain

08. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam

09. Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin

10. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani

Group Members:

01. Alhaj Kamal Uddin Ahmed

02. Mr. Shahid Alam

03. Mr. Mohammad Hatem

04. Mr. Md. Munir Hossain

05. Mr. S. Humayun Kabir

06. Mr. Kedar Lele

07. Mr. Mohammad Shahjahan

08. Mr. Muhammad Shams-uz Zoha

ADVISER TO THE COMMITTEEMr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed

SECRETARY-GENERALMr. Farooq Ahmed

2

Annual Report 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING :

IMPROTANT COURT CASES ON LABOUR MATTERS

STATISTICS:

Proceedings of the 21st AGM of Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) Yearly Report on the Proceedings for the Period of January – December 2018

Membership

Managing Committee

Sub- Committees

Secretariat

Representatives on various Committee/ Bodies for 2018

Participation in HIDA/AOTS/ ITC-ILO/ other international Organisation’s Training Programs

BEF’s Participation in Various Seminars/ Workshops/ Conferences

BEF- Joint programs with ILO, AOTS, JILAF and other National and International

Organizations

Distribution of population by economic activitiesPopulation aged 15 years and above by major industryDistribution of employed person aged 15 years and above by employment status, residence and sexDistribution of employed person aged 15 years and above by employment status, residence and sexEmployed populations aged 15 years and above by economic sector, sex and areaEmployment indices of industrial workers in selected industriesProductivity indices of industrial workers in selected industriesAverage wage rates for construction workers in principal townsAverage wage rates for industrial workers in bangladeshWage rate indices by major sectors in bangladesh (base: 1969 – 70 = 100) Wage rate index by sectors: bangladeshConsumer price index : nationalConsumer price index : ruralConsumer price index : urban

03

13

18

19

23

28

28

30

31

34

38

51

58

107

SNAPSHOTS FROM TRAINING ACTIVITIES 2018

Representatives on the Labour Courts

3

Annual Report 2018

Proceedings of the 21st AGM of Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) held in the 5th

Floor Conference Hall of the Chamber Building on July 30, 2019.

Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, President of the Federation was in the Chair.

The following members of the federation attended the AGM.

Ordinary Members & Group Members

Sl. No. Organization Name and Designation

01. A. K. Khan & Co. Ltd. Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan

Managing Director

02. Alliance Capital Asset Management Ltd. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam

Managing Director & CEO

03. Bangladesh Aushad Shilpa Samity (Bangladesh Association of Pharmaceutical Industries)

Mr. Abu Taher

General Manager

04. Bangladesh Jute Mills Association Mr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman Patwari

05. Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association(BFFEA)

Mr. S. Humayun Kabir

Director

Mr. Shaikh Sohel Pervez

Secretary

06. Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BKMEA)

Mr. Fazlee Shamim Ehsan

Vice President

07. Bangladesh Textile Mills Association (BTMA)

Mr. Shahid ALam

Director

08. Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad (Bangladesh Tea Association )

Mr. M. Shah Alam

Chairman

09. Bengal Glass Works Ltd. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed

Director

10. The Desh Garments Ltd. Ms. Vidiya Amrit Khan

Deputy Managing Director

4

Annual Report 2018


11. Duncan Brothers (BD) Ltd. Mr. M. Shah Alam

Director

12. Envoy Textiles Limited (ETL) Mr. Tanvir Ahmed

Director

13. E-Zone HRM Ltd. Mr. Md. Mominul Ahsan

Managing Director

14. G.K Garments Ltd. Mr. M.F. Azim

Managing Director

15. Grameenphone Ltd. Mr. Syed Tanvir Husain

Chief Human Resources Officer

16. G4S Secure Solutions Bangladesh (P) Ltd. Mr. Selim Chowdhury

Managing Director

07. Kapna Tea Company Limited Mr. Kamran T. Rahman

Managing Director

18. The Khadim Ceramics Ltd. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani

Managing Director

19. Kumudini Welfare Trust of Bengal (Bangladesh) Limited

Commander M. Rizaul Karim BN (Retd.)

General Manager (Admin & Ops.)

20. Leathergoods and Footwear Manufacturers Association of Bangladesh (LFMEAB)

Mr. Md. Jalal Uddin

Senior Research Manager

21. Lungla (Sylhet) Tea Company Limited, The

Mr. M. Shah Alam

Director

22. Micro Industries Development Assistance and Services (MIDAS)

Dr. A.S.M. Mashi-Ur-Rahman

Managing Director

23. Mirpur Ceramic Works Ltd. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani

Vice-Chairman

24. Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Ltd. Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali

Managing Director

25. NDB Capital Ltd. Ms. Jannat Ara

Head of HR, Admin & Finance

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

Chairman & Managing Director

27. Sheltech Ceramics Limited Mr. Tanvir Ahmed

Director

5

Annual Report 2018


28. Singer Bangladesh Limited Mr. Mahmud Hasan

Manager, Law & Admin

29. Square Fashions Limited Mr. Anjan Kumar Paul

General Manager- HR

30. Square Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Mr. Anjan Kumar Paul

General Manager- HR

31. Square Textiles Limited Mr. Anjan Kumar Paul

General Manager- HR

32. Square Toiletries Limited Mr. Anjan Kumar Paul

General Manager- HR

33. Technohaven Company Ltd. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim

Managing Director & CEO

34. Underprivileged Children’s Educational Programs (UCEP) Bangladesh

Ms. Mohua Rashid,

Director, Strategy, Knowledge Management & Corporate Affairs.

Mr. Amran Hossain,

Specialist Legal Affairs.

35. Women Entrepreneurs’ Association, Bangladesh

Ms. Nilufer Karim,

President.

Ms. Yasmeen Ahmed,

Member.

Ms. Mahjabeen Hashim,

Joint Secretary.

1. ICT-ISC Mr. Shafquat Haider

Chairman

2. ISC for Tourism & Hospitality Dr. Rubina Husain

Secretary-General

3. Furniture ISC Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman

Coordinator

4. Ceramic Industry Skills Council (CISC) Mr. Zahedi Hassan Chowdhury

Secretary

Associate Members: (Attended on invitation)

6

Annual Report 2018

5. Furniture ISC Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman

Coordinator

6. Informal Sector Industry Skills Council (ISISC)

Mr. Mirza Nurul Ghani Shovon

Chairman

7. Light Engineering Industry Skills Council (LEISC)

Mr. Md. Asif Uddin Sagar

Office Secretary

8. Construction ISC Mr. SK Abdul Mannan

CEO

9. Agro Food Industry Skills Council Mr. Md. Shafiqur Rahman Bhuiyan

Chairman

There being a quorum, the Chairman called the 21st Annual General Meeting (AGM) to order.

The Chair then stated that the notice for the AGM along with other requisite enclosures like the annual report, audited accounts, etc., which was circulated to all the members be taken as read. There being no dissent, the notice was taken as read.

Before taking up the formal agenda of the AGM, the Chairman apprised the members of some of the important events and activities of the Federation that took place during the period, January – July 2019, which were not covered in the annual report.

The Chair began with the smooth-running of the year 2019 so far, mentioning the importance of the transitioning path of the country towards the graduation from the status of a Least Developed Country along with the fourth industrial revolution fueled by technological advancement and automation. He mentioned the economic shift and warned the audience to watch cautiously, learn keenly, and act carefully to address the current and future industrial challenges such as skills mismatch, capacity building, low productivity, low level of value addition and various compliance issues. The Chairman addressed the social, financial and environmental challenges and to overcome these challenges, he suggested having fruitful dialogues and effective training programs, and formulating, enacting and reforming laws, rules, and policies as and when necessary, maintaining strong industrial relations nationally, regionally and internationally.

The Chairman then mentioned how relentlessly the federation had been working to protect the rights and interests of employers in an effective manner by promoting peace and harmony at the workplace and responsible business along the way. Then he added that, in a fast-changing global scenario, the government, the development partners and BEF need to keep on working together diligently to rise up to the new challenges in a timely and efficient manner to achieve long-term sustainable development for Bangladesh.

Then the Chair talked about the cordial relationship BEF had been maintaining with the government. He apprised the audiences of the call on, which the Executive Committee of the Federation had with the Hon’ble Minister of State for Labour and Employment, Begum Monnujan Sufian, MP and the Hon’ble Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Mr. Anisul Huq, MP on being elected in the National Parliamentary Election and for the portfolios of the said ministries.

7

Annual Report 2018

The Chairman then mentioned the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ (MoU) which was signed between Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) and the National Productivity Organization (NPO) of the Ministry of Industries on February 5, 2019. The purpose of the MoU was to exchange information, best practices and take collaborative steps for improving productivity at enterprises especially among the BEF member firms.

The Federation also continued to review the labor relations situation prevailing in the country on a regular basis. The year 2019 started with some degree of uncertainty concerning minimum wage in the RMG sector, the largest manufacturing sector employing over 4 million workers of which nearly 60% were female workers. The Government declared the revised schedule of the minimum wage in the RMG sector on 24 January 2019. The gross hike ranged from a token Tk.15 to a modest Tk.747, effective from December 2018 and to be adjusted from February 2019. Thereafter, it was rejected outright by some of the workers’ Federations claiming that their expectations were not fulfilled. Workers protested demanding pay raise in 3 grades in particular – grade 3, 4, and 5. The government formed a 20-member tripartite committee to discuss and resolve the issue. BEF monitored the situation and advised the relevant stakeholders to handle the issue efficiently. Finally, the situation became calm and the majority of the workers and their leaders accepted the minimum wage in the RMG sector as per the revised schedule.

Then the Chair mentioned that BEF had amended its Constitution to induct the Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) under BEF umbrella as Associate members. Already, 8 out of 12 ISCs had become Associate members of BEF and rests of the ISCs were in the process of getting BEF membership. BEF organized coordination meetings for the Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) on a regular basis to strengthen the capacity of the ISCs. The purpose of these coordination meetings was to discuss various challenges faced by the ISCs and to facilitate their smooth functioning. The meetings were held to discuss the long-term action plans for ISCs, skills development that included on the job training and entrepreneurship development, publishing list of occupations and AGM of all ISCs.

The Chair then mentioned the active participation of the Federation in international conferences, seminars, workshops and symposiums all over the world naming some of the most recent events where BEF was represented like International Tripartite Meeting on “Supporting Grass-Roots Activities through the International Employers’ and Workers’ Network (SGRA)” in Bangkok; South Asian Regional Training Course on “Evidence-based Policy Making for Decent Work” in New Delhi, and a Tripartite Team Study Tour to Manila.

The Chairman then apprised the members of the seminar titled, “Migration: Where do we stand?”, which the Federation organized on 14 March 2019 at the conference room of BEF secretariat. The objective of the seminar was to make the social partners aware of the progress made in regulating the migration process globally by the ILO and its impact at country level where Bangladesh had also been benefitted as a major player in the field of migration. Mr. Shabarinath Nair, who had recently taken over as the ILO’s Labour Migration Specialist in the Decent Work Team (DWT), New Delhi, explained the total scenario from global, regional as well as country perspective, and the total dynamics of labor migration from South Asia, particularly from Bangladesh to Middle East and other countries. He also mentioned the roles of various platforms like the Colombo Process and Abu Dhabi Dialogue and the involvement of different government and other stakeholders. Eventually, the importance of migration for any country, be it country of origin or destination, was clarified amply. Skills developments of migrant workers, mutual recognition, protection of rights, etc., were also discussed in the seminar.

The Chair then spoke of the active participation of BEF at the annual International Labour Conference (ILC) in Geneva on a regular basis. Keeping with tradition, the federation represented the employers at the 108th session of the ILC in June 2019. He mentioned that this year’s ILC was a milestone event for the ILO as it

8

Annual Report 2018

Agenda No. 1:

The chair then drew attention towards a complaint lodged by a worker leader of Japan on behalf of International Trade Union Confederation, National Workers’ Federations of Japan, Italy, South Africa, Iran and Pakistan against Bangladesh following the Article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning violation of Convention 81, 87, and 98 narrating a severe situation existed in the country during the ILC this year. As a means to counter the allegation and protect the interest of the country, worker delegation from Bangladesh was advised to make a counter statement and project the fact on the observance of ILO Convention 81, 87, and 98 in the country which was done. This particular step helped the country by technically rejecting the allegation made by the Japanese worker leader and saved the image of the country in the presence of the members from over 187 countries and many other global organizations. The move was articulated by the BEF Secretary-General who was present during the session.

Then the Chairman briefed the members on the outcome of the consultation meeting on the draft National Human Resource Development Fund (NHRDF) Operation Manual and TVET Financing Manual held in June 2019. He stated that the government was in the process of preparing operational guidelines for the National Human Resource Development Fund. However, some grey areas existed regarding who should be on the driving seat in managing the operational activities of the fund. Then it was pointed out that the National Skills Development Authority (NSDA) should be the main actor of the fund. Then the Chair mentioned that the President and the Secretary-General of BEF would be meeting the Chairman of NSDA soon to get a clear picture of the status of the fund and its operational guidance.

The Chair also shared with the members that the Dutch Employers Cooperation Programme (DECP) had shown keen interest to support BEF in increasing its membership. Accordingly, a 6-month long project had been undertaken by BEF under the technical supervision of DECP. The objective of this project was to conduct a survey among the federation members to get them more involved in the BEF activities and also identify potential new member organizations.

The Chair then informed the members of the nomination of the BEF President as a member of the Business-friendly Advisory Committee under the Ministry of Commerce. The BEF President had also been nominated to represent at the Reference Group for preparing a Jobs Strategy for Bangladesh. The group would be led by the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the member of the General Economic Division of the Planning Commission. This initiative was under the technical support of the ILO and the World Bank, where ILO would act as the secretariat of the reference group.

With these words, the Chair took up the agenda of the meeting 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 2018 be and is hereby passed and accepted.”

Mr. Kazi Md. Arif Moinuddin of Coca-Cola (IBPL) seconded the proposal and was passed without any disagreement.

celebrated its centenary initiative during the Conference held in June 2019. The ILO had published a document on the future of work envisaging how the world of work would shape up in the next century and encompassing the impact of technology, artificial intelligence, and other innovations. These documents and subsequently, the Centenary Declaration on the future of work remained as a guideline for the member states to evolve their respective strategies for their workforce in respective countries. Besides, the ILO also adopted a Convention and a Recommendation on ending violence and harassment in the world of work.

9

Annual Report 2018

Agenda No. 2:

Agenda No. 3:

Agenda No. 4:

At the request of the Chair, Mr. Tahmid Ahmed, a member of the Finance and Membership Sub-Committee of the Federation moved the Resolution No. 2.

“That the Income and Expenditure Accounts for the year ended on the 31st December 2017 and the Balance-Sheet as at that date, as audited and certified by the Federation’s Auditors, be received and passed.”

Mr. Mahmud Hasan of Singer BD Ltd. seconded it and was passed without any disparity.

The Chair again requested Mr. Tahmid Ahmed to move Resolution No. 3.

“That Messrs. A. Qasem & Co., Chartered Accountants, be and are hereby appointed as the Federation’s Auditors for the year 2019-2020 at the remuneration of TK. 50,000/-.”

Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali of Modern Industries Bangladesh Limited seconded the resolution and was passed unanimously.

Then, the Chair himself took up the Agenda no. 4 on electing committee members for the vacant seats. He informed the members that since there were only 09 (Nine) valid candidates against 09 (Nine) vacant seats representing the Ordinary members and 06 (Six) valid candidates against 06 (Six) vacant seats representing Group members, hence the 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, 2019–2021 under Rule 12 of the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (Election of the Members of the Committee) Rules, 1998 (as of the last amendment in 2018), which was adopted by the BEF Committee at its meeting held on 31 March 2019, and approved at the current AGM:

Ordinary Members

1. Ms. Tahsinah Ahmed Executive Director, Underprivileged Children’s Educational Programs (UCEP) Bangladesh.

2. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed DirectorEnvoy Textiles Limited

3. Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali Managing Director Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Limited

4. Ms. Shusmita Anis Managing DirectorACI Formulations Limited

5. Mr. Syed Tanvir Husain Chief Human Resources OfficerGrameenphone Limited

6. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Managing DirectorTechnohaven Company Limited

7. Ms. Vidiya Amrit Khan Deputy Managing DirectorDesh Garments Limited

8. Mr. Kamran Tanvirur Rahman Managing DirectorThe Kapna Tea Company Limited

10

Annual Report 2018

Then the Chairman announced the composition of the newly formed Committee of the BEF (in alphabetical order):

Ordinary Members

Group Members

1. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed DirectorThe Bengal Glass Works Limited

2. Ms. Tahsinah Ahmed Executive Director,Underprivileged Children’s Educational Programs (UCEP) Bangladesh


4. Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali Managing Director Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Limited

5. Ms. Shusmita Anis Managing DirectorACI Formulations Limited

6. Mr. Selim Chowdhury Managing DirectorG4S Secure Solutions Bangladesh (P) Limited

7. Mr. Syed Tanvir Husain Chief Human Resources OfficerGrameenphone Limited

8. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam Managing Director & CEOAlliance Capital Asset Management Limited

1. Mr. M. Shah Alam ChairmanBangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

2. Mr. Shahid Alam Director Bangladesh Textile Mills Association

3. Mr. Fazlee Shamim Ehsan 2nd Vice-President,Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association.

4. Mr. Zahirul Islam (Rinku) General Member No.1(c),Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association (BSBRA).

5. Mr. Md. Zahid Miah ChairmanBangladesh Jute Spinners Association

6. Mr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman Patwari Executive Committee MemberBangladesh Jute Mills Association

9. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani Managing DirectorKhadim Ceramics Limited

11

Annual Report 2018

9. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Managing DirectorTechnohaven Company Limited

10. Ms. Vidiya Amrit Khan Deputy Managing DirectorDesh Garments Limited

11. Mr. Kamran Tanvirur Rahman Managing DirectorThe Kapna Tea Company Limited

12. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani Managing Director

Khadim Ceramics Limited

Group Members: (In alphabetical order)

1. Mr. M. Shah Alam ChairmanBangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

2. Mr. Shahid Alam DirectorBangladesh Textile Mills Association

3. Mr. Fazlee Shamim Ehsan 2nd Vice-PresidentBangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

4. Mr. Md. Munir Hossain DirectorBangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

5. Mr. Zahirul Islam (Rinku) General Member No.1(c)Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association

6. Mr. Kedar Lele Executive Committee MemberForeign Investors’ Chamber of Commerce & Industry

7. Mr. Md. Zahid Miah ChairmanBangladesh Jute Spinners Association

8. Mr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman Patwari Executive Committee Member Bangladesh Jute Mills Association

The Chair then formally moved the following resolution –

“That election of the 9 (Nine) Ordinary members, and 6 (Six) Group members, to the Federation’s Committee for the term, 2019-2021, as per the report of the Election Board, be confirmed.” He then requested someone to second the proposal.

Ms. Nilufer Karim, President of Women Entrepreneur’s Association (WEA) seconded the proposal and was passed without any dissension.

12

Annual Report 2018

(Kamran T. Rahman)CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING

(Farooq Ahmed)SECRETARY-GENERAL

Then, on behalf of all members of the Federation, the Chairman sincerely thanked Mr. M. Anis Ud Dowla, Chairman of the Election Board, Mr. A.K.M. Rafiqul Islam, FCA, and Mr. Hasan Mahmood, FCA, Members of the Election Board for providing their valuable time in conducting the election procedures.

He also expressed his gratitude to Mrs. Rokia Afzal Rahman, Chairman of the Appeal Board and Mr. Najmul Huq, and Mr. Abdul Khalek, FCA, Members of the Appeal Board for having agreed to serve on the concerned Board.

With that note, the Chair formally concluded the agenda of the 21st Annual General Meeting.

In conclusion, The Chair thanked all the members of the Committee for their active support while discharging the responsibilities during the tenure and proposed a vote of thanks to all members of the Committee for their kind support in upholding employers’ interest in the local forum and at the international level. The success had been possible because all members of the Committee extended due cooperation and worked as key team players. Without their support, solidarity, counsel, and advice, it would have been difficult for the Federation to achieve what it did.

He then congratulated the newly elected Committee Members and welcomed them to contribute to the fruitful deliberations of the Committee in the coming days.

The Chair also thanked the members of the BEF Secretariat for their excellent work for maintaining the quality of output of the Federation.

Then at the request of the Chair, Mr. Habibullah N. Karim, Vice-President – Elect proposed a vote of thanks.

In the end, the Chair declared the 21st AGM officially over at around 2:30 pm and invited the attendees to lunch.

13

Annual Report 2018

YEARLY REPORT ON THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PERIOD OF

JANUARY – DECEMBER 2018

The Committee of Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) has the pleasure of submitting to its members the following yearly report on the proceedings for the period of January – December 2018.

During the period, 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 wage, employment, and industrial relations in various industrial sectors, functional effectiveness of the Crises Management Core Committee, situation of the remittance inflow, skills development, 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 Wages Board on a regular basis and made effective negotiations on fixation of minimum wages of concerned sectors which had been referred to the Board by the government.

On the international front, the Federation held meetings with the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), the Confederation of Asia-Pacific Employers (CAPE), South Asian Forum of Employers (SAFE) and the Overseas Human Resources and Industry Development Association (HIDA) of Japan. In these meetings, the Federation projected the need for capacity building and technical assistance for rendering better services to the members, and for effective strategy formulation for the employers’ organizations in the developing economies for facing the challenges of human resource development, and workplace safety. The Federation also underscored the need for employment creation, social protection and safety net for the more vulnerable groups of workers, and for mainstreaming the physically challenged persons and women in the job market.

In addition to the international exposures, the Federation also actively took part in various consultation meetings of the National Skills Development Authority (NSDA), and continued to coordinate the activities of Industry Skills Councils (ISCs), Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) meeting and ILO’s Better Work Programme in the RMG sector of Bangladesh and Migration Policy for Decent Work for Migrant Workers Project. BEF continued taking part in various national level seminars, symposiums, workshops, etc., on labor related issues, particularly on skills development, labor standards, occupational safety and health, etc., and represented the interests of the employers.

The representatives of the Federation also took part in various international and national level training programs, workshops, and seminars. The Federation organized and facilitated a number of training programs for member-firms and other stakeholders on various issues of industrial relations, human resources development, workplace safety, regulatory compliance, and related topics.

1. Workshop on “Human Rights, Sustainability Reporting and Responsible Business Conduct – What does Business need to know?”:

BEF along with IOE and EU jointly organized a successful workshop on “Human Rights, Sustainability Reporting and Responsible Business Conduct – What does business need to know?” on February 4, 2018 at the Lakeshore

14

Annual Report 2018

There had been a growing concern on business and human rights issues worldwide in recent years especially since 2011 when UN had adopted its resolution 17/4, i.e., Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Thereafter, most of the member countries endorsed this guiding principle with the commitment to follow. The move started vigorously in developed and developing industrial countries. However, Bangladesh was in no way out of the purview as our supply chain was mostly globally linked particularly for manufacturing sectors namely RMG, leather & leather goods, and other processed goods. Hence, it was necessary for Bangladesh to make our industry aware of increasing concerns on business and human rights in the industry. With that pretext, BEF had taken the initiative to organize the workshop. The resource persons discussed on Responsible Business Conduct, Stakeholder Expectations, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Introduction into Sustainability Reporting, the IOE-GRI Guidance and Publications, and Employers’ Organizations Role. They also focused on both, creating awareness and enabling an environment for human rights, sustainable reporting, and responsible business as well as encouraging disclosure procedure and social inclusion of all. They advocated on pursuing the government to implement a National Sustainability Reporting and Responsible Business Policy.

2. “Consultation on Responsible Business Conduct and Competition in Supply Chains” organized by ILO in Kathmandu, Nepal.

A team of three representatives from BEF member organizations had attended “Consultation on Responsible Business Conduct and Competition in Supply Chains” organized by ILO in Kathmandu, Nepal on 26 March, 2018. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed, Member of the Committee, BEF, Mr. Mustain Billah, Head of Policy and Resource, Leathergoods and Footwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association of Bangladesh (LFMEAB) and Ms. Farzana Khan, Deputy General Manager, Small & Medium Enterprise Foundation attended the program.

3. Review of the Labor Situation

4. Coordination Meetings with Industry Skills Councils

The Federation Committee regularly reviewed and prepared reports on the labor situation prevailing in the country, and apprised 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 Wages Board to determine the minimum wage in selected sectors, which had been referred to the Board.

The Federation organized coordination meetings for the Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) on regular basis to strengthen the capacity of the ISCs. The purpose of these coordination meetings was to discuss various challenges faced by the ISCs and to facilitate their smooth functioning. The first coordination meeting of the ISCs for the year 2018 was held on 26 April 2018 at the Conference room of the then NSDC Secretariat. The meeting discussed on the progress review of a long-term action plan for ISCs, skills development, which included on the Job training and entrepreneurship development, publishing list of occupations and AGM of all ISCs, and etc.

Hotel. The event involved an inaugural session and two technical sessions. The event was inaugurated by Mr. Anisul Huq, M.P., as the Chief Guest. Mr. Md. Ashraf Shameem, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment was present as the Special Guest. Mr. Kazi Reazul Hoque, Chairman, National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh graced the event by attending as the Guest of Honor. The Secretary-General of IOE, Ms. Linda Kromjong and Mrs. Erika Hasznos, First Secretary (Political), EU Delegation to Bangladesh also attended and made remarks at the inauguration session of the event. The inauguration of the workshop was attended by BEF members, representatives from government, business community, development partners, think-tank, media etc. The technical sessions had 40 selected participants from the BEF member firms.

15

Annual Report 2018

5. Meeting with Executive Project Director of SEIP Project

A BEF delegation headed by its President had a meeting with the Executive Project Director, Skills for Employment Investment Program (SEIP) under the Ministry of Finance. The meeting was held at the SEIP Project office in the Probashi Kallyan Bhaban on 17 May 2018.

The purpose of the meeting was to renew BEF’s working relationship with the incumbent Executive Project Director Mr. Jalal Ahmed, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance. Besides, the ongoing BEF’s project under SEIP would be over by September 2018, BEF was looking for undertaking new projects. In that regard, BEF also submitted a draft project proposal of bridging industry-academia gap by introducing factory level training for the graduate students of different universities who would be entering the job market in 6 months time. This would be a pilot initiative initially covering a total of 1000 students in 40 batches for two days each training session for nine months tenure.

The Executive Project Director exchanged views and mentioned their efforts in developing base level skills of our workers. He also indicated that SEIP would look into the proposal and would try to get BEF engaged wherever opportunities arose.

6. Meeting with the Foreign Diplomats about the steps taken by Bangladesh Government to ensure Labor Welfare

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs organized an interactive session on 10 May 2018 to apprise the foreign diplomats of the steps taken by Bangladesh Government for ensuring labor welfare.

The BEF President and the Secretary-General, on invitation by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs attended the meeting and made a presentation. The objective of the meeting was to inform the diplomats on the decision taken on amendment of Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) 2006 on the trade union registration threshold bringing it down from current 30% to 20% and amendment of EPZ law. In the amended EPZ law, the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) would be empowered to inspect the factories in EPZ in line with BLA. Besides, the policy for setting up Workers Welfare Association in the factories of EPZ would also be in line with BLA trade union registration process.

7. Outcome of the 107th Session of International Labour Conference (ILC)

Diplomats of major development partner countries attended the meeting. This move was a preparatory to the International Labour Conference 2018.

With fairly commendable preparation, Bangladesh delegation constituted of tripartite members attended the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) held in Geneva from 28 May to 8 June 2018. BEF played a very critical role in lobbying for the country and turning the situation into Bangladesh’s favor. This might have yielded that this year Bangladesh was not shortlisted by the Committee on Application of Standards (CAS). The delegation was able to project to the Committee on Application of Standards that the overall situation and country position had improved to a desirable level. As a result, Bangladesh was not required to defend herself for specific reasons of non-compliance under any ILO Convention. It was the best and the most sound situation for us in the last 4 years. This was possible mainly due to extensive liaison and coordination done by employer delegations of Bangladesh behind the screen especially by the BEF President and the Secretary-General through using their good offices and sound relationship with IOE and ILO. The BEF delegation consisted of Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, President, BEF, Mr. Md. Siddiqur Rahman, President, Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), Mr. Ardashir Kabir, Vice-President, BEF, Mr. Mohammed Nasir, Vice President (Finance),

16

Annual Report 2018

8. ILO-BEF Joint Workshop on the Study Report on “Role of Tripartism and Social Dialogue Towards Effective Elimination of Child Labour in Bangladesh”

BEF in partnership with ILO organized a workshop on the study report on “Role of Tripartism and Social Dialogue towards Effective Elimination of Child Labour in Bangladesh” on 18 July 2018. Mr. Tuomo Poutiainen, Country Director, ILO Country Office for Bangladesh, Mr. Roberto Suarez Santos, Acting Secretary-General, IOE, Geneva, among others, were present at the workshop. The study recommended that child labor elimination could be more effective through tripartite and social dialogue. This would increase the awareness among the stakeholders and also help in eliminating child labor through a gradual process in a progressive manner.

9. Visit of IOE Mission to Bangladesh

A Mission of International Organisation of Employers (IOE), led by its Acting Secretary-General, Mr. Roberto Suarez Santos visited BEF office on 18 July 2018 as a part of its programme for Bangladesh Tour during 18-19 July 2018. The Acting Secretary-General mentioned that visiting Bangladesh was a part of his Asia Trip. The primary objective was to increase cooperation with member federations and get some ground level information. Mr. Santos was given a briefing on SDGs and role of private sector by a senior official of the Planning Commission. He also called on the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment. He attended the workshop on Role of Tripartism and Social Dialogue towards Effective Elimination of Child Labor in Bangladesh. A reception was also hosted by BEF in his honor in the evening of 18 July 2018.

10. Workshop on Employment Injury Scheme in Bangladesh

11. Outcome of the meeting of BEF team with EU Delegation

BEF in consultation with Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) and Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BKMEA) organized a workshop and a meeting between the visiting Mission from the ILO, Geneva and Industry Leaders from major industrial sectors on “Employment Injury Insurance (EII) Scheme in Bangladesh”. ILO presented a proposal on the scheme, which seemed to be complex in our country’s socio-economic context including the higher cost, which would not be feasible on the part of the industry to bear. In addition, experts’ opined that, the payment of compensation on monthly basis to the injured person or to the next of kin of deceased person would be complicated in our scenario and Bangladesh needed to strengthen her management as well as regulatory capacity before initiating such scheme. It was also noted that an employment injury compensation scheme existed in our country as per Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. This existing scheme might be further strengthened instead of introducing a new system. The workshop finally recommended that ILO might revise its proposal and suggest improving the existing system.

A team consisting of BEF Committee members led by its President had a meeting with the visiting EU Delegation on 12 September 2018. It was a very pleasant and meaningful interaction with the delegation, where the EU team was keen to know about the progress made on amendment of Labour Act, EPZ Act, other compliance issues related to GSP and subsequently GSP plus. EU delegation clearly mentioned that they preferred to meet and get views from the stakeholders namely employers, workers, NGOs, development partners before meeting the government. Finally, the delegation wrapped up the meeting with employers delegation and termed it a successful interaction.

BGMEA, Mr. A N M Saif Uddin, Director, BGMEA, Mr. Miran Ali, Director, BGMEA, Mr. Mohammad Hatem, Member of the Committee, BEF, Mr. Selim Chowdhury, Member of the Committee, BEF, Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani, Member of the Committee, BEF, Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali, Managing Director, Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Limited, and Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, BEF.

17

Annual Report 2018

13. National Apprenticeship Conference 2018

14. Roundtable Discussion on Global Deal and Social Dialogue – Dhaka

The National Apprenticeship Conference 2018 was organized by a2i Project of the Prime Minister’s Office during 21-22 September 2018 at Cox’s Bazar. BEF representatives attended the event on the invitation.

A good number of participants from Dhaka and other places attended the conference. The Conference discussed the importance and the benefits of apprenticeship and the ways to find strategies to create awareness of apprenticeship in Bangladesh. In addition, GAN Bangladesh (Global Apprenticeship Network Bangladesh) was launched in that occasion.

A Roundtable Discussion on Global Deal and Social Dialogue – Dhaka, was held on 25 September 2018 at the residence of the Ambassador of Sweden in Dhaka. BEF representatives attended the discussion. The background of the Global Deal initiative and its objectives of promoting social dialogue among the social partners through following a tripartite plus strategy were discussed. Representatives from BEF, BGMEA and BKMEA strongly objected the strategy, because as per ILO Convention 144 which was ratified by Bangladesh, there was no scope for tripartite plus social dialogue.

15. Skills Competition 2018

The Skills and Training Enhancement Project (STEP) under the Directorate of Technical Education, Department of Technical and Madrasah Education Division (TMED) of Ministry of Education organized a Skills Competition 2018 on 27 September 2018.

The Skills Competition organized by Directorate of Technical Education was a good initiative as so many innovative projects came up for participation and display. The inaugural ceremony was attended by the Hon’ble Minister of Education Mr. Nurul Islam Nahid, M.P., as the Chief Guest. There were other senior government officials and members from the development partners present. BEF extended its support to the Directorate of Technical Education to promote these innovative works through circulation among its members and rest of the business community. This might help the young participants to get future encouragements through possible sponsorships by potential sponsors from the business community for subsequent commercial ventures.

16. Visit of Mr. Daniel Cork, Better Work Geneva

Mr. Daniel Cork, Technical Specialist, IR & Discrimination, Better Work Global in Geneva visited Bangladesh and

had a meeting with BEF members on 29 September 2018. Mr. Cork discussed on the following points:

12. BEF-JILAF Joint Job Seminar on the SGRA Project.

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), jointly with Japan International Labour Foundation (JILAF) organized a “Job Seminar” in Khulna on 6 October, 2018. The objective of the seminar was to discuss and exchange views with the employers, employers’ representatives on JILAF Vocational Training Activities. Information of the workers who were trained on various trades under JILAF – SGRA Project was also shared at the seminar. JILAF and its technical project were working for skilling up grass root level workers in Bangladesh. It was a regional project covering four other countries within the region. The project did not have any linkup with possible employment for the candidates upon receipt of training. However, BEF had taken the initiative to organize job fairs through which the candidates receiving training could appear before potential employers for future employment. This initiative was deeply appreciated by JILAF not only in Bangladesh but also in Japan and in other regional countries. In fact, BEF had set an example in this regard.

18

Annual Report 2018

17. Inclusion of Industry Skills Councils under the BEF Membership

18. First DWCP Steering Committee Meeting

(1) Better Work Global Advisory Committee & Management Group;

(2) Employers’ Contact Group, which served as caucus mechanism to aid IOE and ILO ACT/EMP in preparing for AC meetings;

(3) Bangladesh Employers’ Federation’s perspective on Better Work Bangladesh programme; and

(4) BEF’s Bangladesh Business and Disability Network (BBDN) (BEF’s work in this area, as disability was also included in Better Work Global).

Mr. Cork had a meaningful discussion on Better Work Bangladesh project based on the firsthand information he got from the RMG sector employers about the strength and weakness of BWP.

Considering the necessity of the time and situation, BEF decided to include the newly registered Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) as members of the federation by creating a new membership category in the BEF Constitution. Currently, BEF had two types of membership; Ordinary members and Group Members. ISCs, which were formed combining different categories of organizations, worked closely with BEF since its inception. Therefore, it was strongly recommended to include ISCs in some form of BEF membership though ISCs did fall neither under the category of Ordinary member nor under Group members.

Appreciating the demand of the time and reality, the Committee considered the ISCs to be inducted as either Associate member or Affiliated member (the most appropriate one) whatever would be most suitable keeping in mind the regulatory aspects and seeking advice from legal practitioners for finalization. The Committee also noted that under Clause 7 of the Constitution of BEF, after the existing 2 categories of members, i.e., Ordinary members and Group members [category (i) and category (ii)], a new category of members would be added, as under:

(iii) Associated or Affiliated Members (any one)

The First Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) Steering Committee Meeting was held on 27 November 2018 in the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Bangladesh Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) was developed in close collaboration with ILO’s tripartite constituents: the Government, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation and National Coordination Committee for Workers Education and was result oriented, focused and well-coordinated with national policy documents such as 7th Five Year Plan of Bangladesh and global development initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Issues that came up at the meeting during the discussion on future of works included: effect of technology, automation, introduction of robotic technology in the labor intensive country like Bangladesh, far reaching effects of wage increase, concerns on job availability, employment and job strategy, and other related issues. BEF was actively engaged in micro level project of DWCP.

I. MEMBERSHIP:

New Member:During the period, the following organizations joined the Federation as new members:

19

Annual Report 2018

Ordinary Members:

Group Members:

Resigned:

Change of Company Name:

PRESIDENT

MANAGING COMMITTEE

At the commencement of the year, i.e., on the 1st January, 2018, the managing Committee of the Federation comprised of the following:

01. Elite Security Services Limited

02. Dress World Limited

03. Mohammadi Group Limited

04. United Finance Limited

05. Bayer CropScience Limited

01. ‘Quasem Drycells Limited’ changed its name to ‘Quasem Industries Limited’.

02. ‘Ruposhi Bangla Hotel’ changed its name to ‘Intercontinental Dhaka’.

01. W W Avion Tours & Travels Limited

Mr. Kamran T. Rahman Managing Director

The Kapna Tea Company Ltd.

None

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Ordinary Members: (In alphabetical order)

01. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed DirectorThe Bengal Glass Works Limited


03. Mr. Miran Ali Managing DirectorRemi Farms Limited

04. Ms. Farzana Chowdhury Managing Director & CEOGreen Delta Insurance Co. Ltd.

VICE-PRESIDENT

Mr. Ardashir Kabir Managing Partner,

Sathgao Tea Estate

20

Annual Report 2018


01. Alhaj Kamal Uddin Ahmed General Member,Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association

02. Barrister Sumaiya Aziz Director,Bangladesh Textile Mills Association

03. Mr. M. Wahidul Haque Committee Member,Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

04. Mr. Mohammad Hatem Former 1st Vice-President,Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers &Exporters Association

05. Mr. S. Humayun Kabir Director,Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association

06. Mr. Mahmud Hasan Khan (Babu) Vice President,

Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

07. Mr. Mohammad Shahjahan Chairman,Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

08. Mr. Muhammad Shams-uz Zoha Chairman,Bangladesh Jute Mills Association



07. Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin Director,Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited

08. Mr. Quazi Mohammad Shahed Chief Human Resource Officer,GrameenPhone Limited

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

SECRETARY-GENERAL

Ordinary members

01. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed Director,The Bengal Glass Works Limited

02. Mr. Selim Chowdhury Managing Director,G4S Secure Solutions Bangladesh (P) Limited

Mr. Farooq Ahmed

The following members were to retire on the eve of the 20th A.G.M. in July 2018:

21

Annual Report 2018

Group members

01. Mr. Mahmud Hasan Khan (Babu) Vice President,Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers &Exporters Association

The Committee noted that the first paragraph of Clause 13(3)(i) of the Constitution of BEF as amended at the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) held on 31 July, 2017, envisages: “...on completion of the term of two years, members representing Ordinary members shall be eligible to seek re-election for another 2 years term and their respective organizations shall also be eligible to nominate them or any other persons from their organizations to contest the election for another 2 years term. After completion of consecutive 2 terms covering a period of four years, members representing Ordinary members shall not be eligible to contest the elections in the next 2 years and their respective organizations also shall not be eligible to nominate anyone else of their organizations to contest the next two elections”.

Accordingly, of the 4 retiring Ordinary members mentioned above, 3 members, i.e., Mr. Tahmid Ahmed, Mr. Selim Chowdhury and Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam would be eligible to seek re-election for the next two annual terms, i.e., 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. Their respective organizations would also be eligible to nominate them or anyone else to seek election for the next two annual terms. Mr. Quazi Mohammad Shahed, being a co-opted member, would retire at the 20th AGM and he as well as his representative organization would remain eligible to contest in the next election.

The Committee also noted that Mr. Mahmud Hasan Khan (Babu) representing Group members would retire on completion of his two-year term, 2016-2018 and would not be eligible to seek re-election for the next two annual terms. His representative organization, Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, would, however, remain eligible to nominate anyone else to contest in the next election.

Besides the above 5(five) vacancies, 1(one) seat from the Ordinary members remained vacant during 2017-2018, for which election would be required.

In all, election would be needed for 6 (six) vacancies [5(five) vacancies from Ordinary members and 1(one) vacancy from Group members].

The Management Committee of the Federation after the 20th AGM held on 30 July, 2018 was as follows:

PRESIDENT

VICE-PRESIDENT

Mr. Kamran T. Rahman Managing DirectorThe Kapna Tea Company Limited

Mr. Ardashir Kabir Managing Partner,Sathgao Tea Estate

03. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam Managing Director & CEO,Alliance Capital Asset Management Limited

04. Mr. Quazi Mohammad Shahed Chief Human Resource Officer,GrameenPhone Limited

22

Annual Report 2018

Ordinary Members: (In alphabetical order)

01. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed Director

The Bengal Glass Works Limited

02. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Director

Envoy Textiles Limited

03. Mr. Miran Ali Managing Director

Remi Farms Limited

04. Ms. Farzana Chowdhury Managing Director & CEO

Green Delta Insurance Co. Ltd.


06. Ms. Rubana Huq Managing DirectorMohammadi Group Limited

07. Mr. Syed Tanvir Husain Chief Human Resource OfficerGrameenPhone Limited


09. Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin Director,Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited

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


01. Alhaj Kamal Uddin Ahmed General Member,Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association

02. Barrister Sumaiya Aziz Director,Bangladesh Textile Mills Association

03. Mr. Mohammad Hatem Former 1st Vice-President,Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

04. Mr. Md. Munir Hossain Director,Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

05. Mr. S. Humayun Kabir Director,Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association

06. Mr. Kedar Lele Executive Committee Member,Foreign Investors’ Chamber of Commerce & Industry

07. Mr. Mohammad Shahjahan Chairman,Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

08. Mr. Muhammad Shams-uz Zoha Chairman,Bangladesh Jute Mills Association

23

Annual Report 2018

SECRETARY-GENERAL

III. SUB-COMMITTEES

1. FINANCE & MEMBERSHIP SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Ardashir Kabir (Chairman) Sathgao Tea Estate

02. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed The Bengal Glass Works Limited

03. Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Limited

04. Mr. Abul Bashar Prime Composite Mills Limited

05. Ms. Farzana Chowdhury Green Delta Insurance Co. Ltd.

06. Mr. Najmul Huq Sadat Jute Industries Ltd.

07. Mrs. Sabrina Islam Osman Textiles Limited

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

09. Mr. Mohammed Mahbubur Rahman Patwari Bangladesh Jute Mills Association

10. Mr. Adnan N. Rahman Pubali Jute Mills Limited

Mr. Farooq Ahmed

As constituted by the Managing Committee, the following 14 (fourteen)

Sub-Committees functioned during the term, August 2018 – July 2019:

2. LABOUR RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Alhaj Kamal Uddin Ahmed Chairman) Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association

02. Mr. Mohammad Hatem Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

03. Mr. Md. Munir Hossain Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers & Exporters Association

04. Mr. Asif Ibrahim Newage Garments Limited

05. Mr. M. Jamaluddin Bangladesh Textile Mills Association

06. Mr. Ardashir Kabir Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

07. Mr. Golam Mainuddin British American Tobacco Bangladesh Co. Ltd.

08. Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur Apex Footwear Limited


10. Mr. Mohammad Shahjahan Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

3. LABOUR LAW SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Mohammad Hatem (Chairman) Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

02. Mr. M. Shah Alam Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

03. Mr. Miran Ali Remi Farms Limited

24

Annual Report 2018

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

05. Barrister Imtiaz Uddin Ahmad Asif Alltex Industries Limited



08. Ms. Nihad Kabir Kedarpur Tea Company Ltd.

09. Mr. Golam Mainuddin British American Tobacco Bangladesh Co. Ltd.

10. Mr. Md. Golam Mostafa, MBA Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association

11. Mr. Muhammad Shams-uz Zoha Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

4. LABOUR COURTS SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. S. Humayun Kabir (Chairman) Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association

02. Mr. M. Shah Alam Bangladeshiyo Cha Sangsad

03. Ms. Shusmita Anis ACI Formulations Limited

04. Barrister Imtiaz Uddin Ahmad Asif Alltex Industries Limited

05. Mr. Selim Chowdhury G4S Secure Solutions Bangladesh (P) Ltd.



08. Mr. A.S.M. Mainuddin Monem Abdul Monem Sugar Refinery Ltd.




5. SELECTION SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Tahmid Ahmed (Chairman) The Bengal Glass Works Limited

02. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Envoy Textiles Limited

03. Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Ltd.

04. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam Alliance Capital Asset Management Limited

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

06. Mr. S. Humayun Kabir Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association

07. Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited


09. Mrs. Sadaf Saaz Siddiqi Sidko Apparels Ltd

6. SEMINAR SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani (Chairman) Khadim Ceramics Limited


25

Annual Report 2018

8. MINIMUM WAGES RELATED SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Mohammad Shahjahan (Chairman) Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

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






08. Mr. M. Humayun Kabir, FCA Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

09. Mr. Kaihan N. Rahman Pubali Jute Mills Limited

9. PUBLIC RELATIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Selim Chowdhury (Chairman) G4S Secure Solutions Bangladesh (P) Ltd.


03. Mr. Miran Ali Remi Farms Limited

7. WAGES CONSULTATIVE SUB-COMMITTEE (DHAKA REGION)


02. Mr. Md. Monsoor Ahmed Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association

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

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

05. Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem Abdul Monem Sugar Refinery Limited


07. Mr. Mohammad Shahjahan Bangladesh Jute Spinners Association

08. Mr. Sakif Ariff Tabani Khadim Ceramics Limited





07. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Technohaven Company Ltd.

08. Mr. A. S. M. Mainuddin Monem Abdul Monem Sugar Refinery Limited


10. Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha Dohatec New Media

11. Ms. Sadaf Saaz Siddiqi Sidko Apparels Limited

26

Annual Report 2018

04. Barrister Sumaiya Aziz Bangladesh Textile Mills Association



07. Mr. Kedar Lele Foreign Investors Chamber of Commerce and Industry

08. Mr. Syed Nasim Manzur Apex Footwear Ltd


10. SAFETY AND WORKING CONDITIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed (Chairman) Envoy Textiles Limited




05. Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir Kedarpur Tea Company Limited

06. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Technohaven Company Limited

07. Mr. Golam Mainudidn British American Tobacco Bangladesh Co. Ltd.



10. SAFETY AND WORKING CONDITIONS SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed (Chairman) Envoy Textiles Limited




05. Mrs. Laila Rahman Kabir Kedarpur Tea Company Limited

06. Mr. Habibullah N. Karim Technohaven Company Limited

07. Mr. Golam Mainudidn British American Tobacco Bangladesh Co. Ltd.



11. TRAINING AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam (Chairman) Alliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.

02. Alhaj Kamal Uddin Ahmed Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association

03. Mr. Abul Bashar Prime Composite Mills Limited

04. Ms. Farzana Chowdhury Green Delta Insurance Co. Ltd.



27

Annual Report 2018

12. WOMEN IN DEVELOPMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Ms. Farzana Chowdhury (Chairperson) Green Delta Insurance Co. Ltd.

02. Ms. Shusmita Anis ACI Formulations Limited


04. Mrs. Simeen Hossain Transcom Limited


06. Mr. Ardashir Kabir Sathgao Tea Estate

07. Ms. Ayesha Kabir Women Entrepreneurs’ Association, Bangladesh

08. Ms. Nihad Kabir Kedarpur Tea Company Ltd.

09. Ms. Rokeya Quader Desh Garments Limited

10. 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)

01. Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin (Chairman) Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited


03. Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali Modern Industries (Bangladesh) Limited







10. Ms. Luna Shamsuddoha Dohatec New Media


14. IMPROVING SAFETY, WORKING CONDITIONS AND IR IN THE RMG SECTOR SUB-COMMITTEE

01. Mr. Miran Ali (Chairman) Remi Farms Limited

02. Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Envoy Textiles Limited

03. Alhaj Kamal Uddin Ahmed Bangladesh Ship Breakers and Recyclers Association


07. Mr. Salahuddin Kasem Khan A.K. Khan & Co. Ltd.




28

Annual Report 2018

01. Representation at International Organisation of Employers, Geneva

Mr. Kamran T. Rahman

President, BEF

Substitute: Mr. Farooq Ahmed

Secretary-General, BEF

02. Governing Body of Bangladesh Institute of Management

Mr. Ardashir Kabir

Vice-President, BEF

03. Bangladesh Technical Education Board Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed

Labour Adviser, BEF

04. Bangladesh Minimum Wages Board Mr. Kazi Saifuddin Ahmed

Labour Adviser, BEF

05. Tripartite Consultative Council

(TCC) on Labour Matters of the

Ministry of Labour and Employment

(1) The President

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation.

(2) The Vice-President,

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation.

(3) Mr. Farooq Ahmed,

Secretary-General, BEF

(4) The President,

Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and

Exporters Association.

IV. SECRETARIAT

V. BANGLADESH EMPLOYERS’ FEDERATION’S REPRESENTATIONS AT VARIOUS BODIES (AS ON DECEMBER 2018):

Mr. Farooq Ahmed continued as the Secretary-General and the CEO of the Federation during the Year 2018.

Sd/-

(Kamran T. Rahman)

CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETING

Sd/- (Farooq Ahmed)

SECRETARY-GENERAL

05. Mr. Asif Ibrahim Newage Garments Limited

06. Mr. Kh. Asadul Islam Alliance Capital Asset Management Limited

07. Mrs. Sabrina Islam Concorde Garments Limited

08. Mr. Munawar Misbah Moin Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited



29

Annual Report 2018

TRAINING & CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVES IN 2018

30

Annual Report 2018

Participation in HIDA / AOTS / ITC- ILO / other International Organisation’s Training Programs:

The Federation nominated a number of participants to different training programs conducted by The Association for Overseas Technical Cooperation and Sustainable Partnerships (AOTS), Japan / ITC – ILO Turin, Italy / and other International Organisations:

Sl. No. Name of Participant

Designation & Name of the Firm

Training Program Place & Duration

1. Mr. Farooq Ahmed

Mr. Moksud Belal Siddiqui

Secretary-General

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation

Senior Economist


AOTS Workshop of Joint Study on “Challenges and Opportunities for Creating Shared Value in Industrial Relations – In Light of Globalization, Productivity, Diversity and ICT Innovation” and “Bilateral Consultation meeting”

23 – 26 January 2018

Jakarta, Indonesia

2. Ms. Lutfun Nahar Joya

AGM – Human Resources

APEX Footwear Ltd.

AOTS Program on Industrial Relations (IR) and Human Resource Management (HRM)-[ERHR2]

05 - 16 March 2018

Tokyo, Japan

3. Mr. Mohammad Shahidul Alam

Manager – Human Resources

SQUARE Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

AOTS Management Training Program- [ERMT]

13 - 20 March 2018

Tokyo, Japan

4. Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Chowdhury, ACS,

Senior Officer – Regulatory Affairs, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF)

Advanced International Training programme (ITP) on “Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development”

07-27 April, 2018

Stockholm, Sweden

5. Mr. Md. Nurul Haq Assistant General Manager

Envoy Textiles Limited

AOTS Instructors’ Training Course on “Management Training Program- (MTP)” [ERMI]

21 May - 08 June 2018

Osaka, Japan

6. Mr. Mohammad Rakibur Rahman

Assistant Manager Human Capital & Development

Pan Pacific Sonargaon Dhaka

AOTS Program on Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management [ERHR1]

13 - 27 June 2018

Tokyo, Japan

31

Annual Report 2018

Sl. No. Name of Participant

Designation & Name of the Firm

Training Program Place & Duration

7. Mr. Md Mazharul Islam

Manager – Environment, Health and Safety (EHS)

American & Efird (BD) Ltd.

AOTS Program on “Occupational Safety and Health Management and Work Environment Improvement [ERWM]”

16 – 31 July, 2018

Tokyo, Japan

8. Mr. Habibur Rahman Legal Officer


Advanced International Training Programme

Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development in line with agenda 2030

17 September -5, October 2018, Sweden

9. Mr. Md. Mahmudul Haque

Deputy General Manager

(HRD Division),

Sheltech (Pvt.) Ltd.

AOTS Program on Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management for Executives [ERHE]

5 – 16 November 2018

Tokyo, Japan

10. Mr. Farooq Ahmed Secretary-General


AOTS Program on EREO “Seminar of Leaders of Employers’ organization”

19-23 November, 2018

Tokyo, Japan

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation’s Participation in Seminars / Workshops / Symposiums and other National / International Affairs:

(1) Participation in Seminars/Workshops/Symposiums:

1. Workshop on ‘M&E training and assessment’ presentation session designed for the stakeholder members organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 16 January 2018 at BRAC-CDM, Savar, Dhaka

2. Consultation workshop on Social Marketing Initiative of SEIP, held on 6 February, 2018 at the CIRDAP auditorium, Dhaka,

3. Stakeholder workshop on the Independent Final evaluation for the COE project of ILO organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 25 February, 2018 at the Nascent Gardenia Hotel, Dhaka

4. Workshop on Development of National Qualification Framework (NQF) organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 06 March 2018 at the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka

5. ToT on “Key elements of sound Industrial Relations Systems and best HR practices to promote Dialogue at workplace level “ organized in March 2018 by ITCILO under SDIR project of ILO Country office for Bangladesh

6. Expert Meeting on ‘Returnee Migrants’ Reintegration Framework, organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 1 April, 2018, at WEWB Conference Room, Probashi Kalyan Bhaban, Eskaton, Dhaka

32

Annual Report 2018

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation’s representations at various International Seminars / Workshops / Conferences:

7. Train the Trainers Course on “Enhancing Supervisory Skills at Factory Level in the RMG sector of Bangladesh” organized in May 2018 by ITCILO under SDIR project of ILO Country office for Bangladesh

8. Workshop on the National Skills Competition to attend world skills Competition organized on 6 May, 2018 by the NSDC, Dhaka

9. Workshop on “Business Outreach and Procurement” held on 27 June 2018 at Jamuna Conference Room of the World Bank Office, Dhaka

10. “Monitoring and Evaluation Training” organized by the SDIR Project of the ILO Country Office for Bangladesh during 16-18 July 2018 in the ILO Office in Dhaka,

11. ILO DWCP signing ceremony organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 31 July 2018 at the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel

12. Workshop on Bangladesh TVET sector development projection aligned with SDGs organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on August 8-10, 2018 at the BRAC CDM–Rajendrapur, Gazipur.

13. Stakeholders Workshop on UGC’s HEAT Project held on 22 September, 2018 at the UGC Auditorium, Agargaon, Dhaka

14. National Sharing and Validation Workshop on Mapping of Recruitment Practices organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 9 October, 2018 at the Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka

15. Workshop on “Participation in the BWB Stakeholders Forum organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 22 October 2018 at Le Meridian, Dhaka

16. Dissemination Workshop on Impact of Migration on Growth, Poverty and Gender organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 30 October, 2018 at the BRAC Center, Mohakhali, Dhaka

17. Workshop on Development of Bangladesh Qualification Framework (BQF) organized by ILO Country Office for Bangladesh on 11 December 2018 at the Pan Pacifi9c Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka.

During the year 2018, representatives of the Federation participated in the following international seminars/workshops/conferences:

(i) Ms. Farzana Chowdhury, Member of the Committee, BEF and Managing Director & CEO, Green Delta Insurance Co. Ltd. attended the ILO “Regional Conference on Women and the Future of Work in Asia and the Pacific” held during 31 January – 1 February 2018 in Bangkok, Thailand

(ii) Mr. Syed Tareque Md. Ali, Managing Director, Modern Industries Ltd. and Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation attended the 7th “SAFE” meeting held during 19-20 February in Karachi

(iii) Mr. Tahmid Ahmed, Member of the Committee, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), and Director, The Bengal Glass Works Limited, Mr. Mustain Billah, Head of Policy and Resource, Leathergoods And

33

Annual Report 2018

Footwear Manufacturers & Exporters Association of Bangladesh (LFMEAB), and Ms. Farzana Khan, Deputy General Manager, Small & Medium Enterprise Foundation attended the ILOs “Consultation on Responsible Business Conduct and Competition in Supply Chains” held on 26 March 2018 in Kathmandu, Nepal

(iv) Mr. Nazrul Islam Chowdhury, Senior Officer – Regulatory Affairs, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) attended the Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development– In line with Agenda 2030 held during 9 – 27 April, 2018, in Sweden, organized by SIDA

(v) Mr. Asif Ayub, Additional Secretary, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) attended the Peer Exchange visit to Indonesia with comparable systems and explore potential G2G assistance held in May 2018, in Indonesia

(vi) Mr. Asif Ayub, Additional Secretary, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF)attended Peer Review Visit to Indonesia on Data Management of Migrant Workers June 24-29, 2018 Jakarta, Indonesia

(vii) Mr. Joha Jamilur Rahman, Training Coordinator, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation joined the ““Study Tour Programme to the Philippines and Malaysia” organized through ILO’s Skills 21 – Empowering Citizens for Inclusive and Sustainable Growth project held during 22 July – 03 August 2018 in Philippines and Malaysia

(viii) Mr. Kamran T. Rahman, President , Bangladesh Employers’ Federation and Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation joined the “Employers’ visit to Vietnam - Better Work Bangladesh” held during 23-27 July, 2018 in Vietnam

(ix) Mr. Asif Ayub, Additional Secretary, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation, attended the Annual Thematic Meeting of GFMD Business Mechanism held on 23 October, 2018 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

(x) Mr. Asif Ayub, Additional Secretary, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation attended the “Peer Exchange Visit to Nepal with comparable systems and explore potential G2G assistance” held during October 31-November 3, 2018 in Kathmandu, Nepal

(xi) Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Chowdhury, ACS, Senior Officer – Regulatory Affairs, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) attended the Regional Follow-Up Seminar: Advanced International Training programme (ITP) on “Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development” held during 12 – 16 November 2018 in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

(xii) Mr. Asif Ayub, Additional Secretary, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation, Mr. Tahseen Salman Choudhury, Research and Publication Officer, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation attended the “2nd ILO/Korea TVET Forum, 2018, Skills and the Future of Work: Strategies for Inclusive Growth in Asia and the Pacific” held during 19 – 20 November 2018 in Bangkok Thailand

(xiii) Mr. Md. Altaf Hossain, General Manager, Quality Assurance, Advance Chemical Industries (ACI) Limited attended the “ILO Global Dialogue Forum on Challenges for Decent and productive Work arising from Digitalization in the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Industries” held during 10 – 12 December 2018 in Geneva

(xiv) Mr. Joha Jamilur Rahman, Training Coordinator, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation and Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Chowdhury, Senior Officer, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation attended the ITC-ILO

34

Annual Report 2018

“Regional Workshop on Quality Apprenticeships for Asia and the Pacific” held during 10 – 14 December 2018 in Siem Reap, Cambodia

(xv) Mr. Ardashir Kabir, Vice-President , Bangladesh Employers’ Federation and Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation attended the CAPE-ITUC-AP Regional Dialogue on Future of Work towards Sustainable and Inclusive Asia and the Pacific held during 13 – 14 December 2018 in Bangkok, Thailand.

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) - Joint programs with ILO, AOTS, JILAF and other National and International Organizations

Following joint activities were undertaken during the year 2018:

“BEF - JILAF Joint Job Seminar of the SGRA Project” organized jointly by: Bangladesh Employers’

Federation (BEF), Japan International Labour Foundation (JILAF), JILAF - SGRA Project in

Bangladesh in Khulna on 06 December 2018

The BEF – JILAF Joint Job Seminar was organized in Khulna to discuss and exchange views with the employers, employers’ representatives on JILAF Vocational Training activities and to share information about the workers trained on various trades under JILAF - SGRA Project in Bangladesh to create employment opportunities for them. “Job Seminar on the SGRA Project” was organized at the Rose Conference Hall of the Tiger Garden International Hotel, Shib Bari more Circle in Khulna, Bangladesh, on 06 October, 2018.

Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Secretary-General, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), who moderated and facilitated the event, welcomed all present on the occasion and briefed the session on the background and objectives of the event. Mr. Ahmed also informed the seminar on the availability of workers trained on different trades under SGRA project. He mentioned that 145 participants from Khulna region attended the vocational training on different trades such as Welding, Tailoring, Driving, Computer, Block Batik, Electricial, Plumbing, Quality control, Graphic design, Fishery livestock, etc. He mentioned that this kind of job seminar would create employment opportunities for the potential trained workers and requested the employers for productive employment of trained workers. Mr. Farooq Ahmed also mentioned that the workers who attended vocational training activities conducted by JILAF-SGRA project at different times were well motivated and well prepared to enter into labour market.

Mr. Sk. Md. Abdul Baki, Vice President, Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association (BFFEA), appreciated the steps and activities undertaken by JILAF and JILAF- SGRA project in Bangladesh with the intention of capacity building and skill development of the targeted groups. He also mentioned that though JILAF –SGRA project activities were not known to them, but as a follow-up of this seminar their organization would now try to provide employment opportunities for the JILAF trained workers as per the industries need.

Mr. S. Humayun Kabir, Member of the Committee, Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) and Director, Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Association (BFFEA), also echoed the opinions made by the Vice President, BFFEA. He praised the JILAF activities undertaken for the betterment of vulnerable groups such as low wage earners, small enterprise workers, women, and people with disabilities. He also mentioned that the seminar had provided an opportunity to know the skills and knowledge of the workers trained under the JILAF- SGRA project in Bangladesh.

35

Annual Report 2018

Mr. Md. Mofidul Islam Tutul, Director, Khulna Chamber of Commerce and Industry, mentioned that they were unaware about the vocational training activities and other activities carried out under the JILAF–SGRA project in Bangladesh. He hoped that these activities would surely help the targeted group for their capacity building and skill development which could be utilized by the related industries. He also mentioned that he would circulate the information about the workers trained on various trades under JILAF - SGRA Project amongst the members of the Khulna Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), requesting the interested members of the KCCI to recruit the trained workers as per their organization/industry need.

Mr. Nurul Islam Khan Nasim, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation – Bangladesh Council (ITUC-BC), also spoke on the occasion and highlighted JILAF SGRA project activities in Bangladesh. He mentioned the importance of labour management relation and workplace cooperation for productivity improvement of any business houses and industrial concerns.

Mr. Syed Masudur Rahman, Chief Representative, JILAF-SGRA Project in Bangladesh also spoke in the seminar program and made presentation on JILAF activities. He also presented detailed information about the training activities and particulars of the workers trained on various trades, particularly in and around Khulna area. He exchanged views with the employers representatives and provided satisfactory information in response to their queries.

Employers and employers’ representatives from various sectoral trade bodies, companies and industry groups, women entrepreneurs, workers’ organizations, project officials joined the job seminar. Around 50 representatives / participants representing various sectors of trade and industry, and others attended the seminar. All the participating representatives were provided with the detailed information document and particulars of the workers trained on different trades under SGRA project.

The participants expressed their gratitude to BEF and JILAF for organizing the job seminar. The event was much appreciated by the participants considering the growing need of skilled workers in their respective sectors. Several participants representing the fish processing sector opined that they were in need of skilled workers; however, due to the lack of trained employee, they had to recruit the unskilled labor. As a result, not only they had to incur an extra cost but also the productivity level was not up to the benchmark. Thus the seminar was a much needed one.

During the open discussion, queries with regard to the basic qualification, academic background, duration of the organized trainings on different trades, participation of candidates from the adjacent areas of the fish processing industries, came up as discussion points.

BEF successfully organized the job seminar as planned. JILAF, ITUC-BC, JILAF-SGRA Project and related quarters provided their support services for successful completion of the event.

36

Annual Report 2018

Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF)

Chamber Building (04th Floor)

122-124 Motijheel C/A, Dhaka

Participated Training/Workshop/Seminar

Up to December2018

List of Programs attended by Mr. Md. Nazrul Islam Chowdhury

Name: Joha Jamilur Rahman

Position: Training Coordinator

SL Name of the Training/Workshop/Meeting

Venue/Place Date

01. Consultation workshop on Social Marketing Initiative of SEIP

CIRDAP auditorium, Dhaka February 6, 2018

02. Stakeholder workshop on the Independent Final evaluation for the COE project of ILO

Nascent Gardenia Hotel, Dhaka February 25, 2018

03. Preparatory workshop on Development of Bangladesh Qualification Framework (BQF)

Pan Pacific Sonargaon Hotel, Dhaka March 6, 2018

04. Workshop on the National Skills Competition to attend world skills Competition

NSDC, Dhaka May 6, 2018

05. Workshop on Bangladesh TVET sector development projection aligned with SDGs

BRAC CDM, Gazipur August 8-10, 2018

06. Study tour of the members of National Steering Committee of the Bangladesh Qualification Framework (BQF) and leaders of National Quality Assurance and Accreditation System (NQAAS) to Malaysia and Philippines

Philippine and Malaysia July 21, 2018 to August 3, 2018

07. Regional Training Workshop on Quality Apprenticeships for Asia-Pacific by ILO

Angkor Paradise Hotel, Siem Reap, Cambodia

D e c e m b e r 10-14, 2018

1. Regional Training Workshop on Quality Apprenticeship for Asia-Pacific, Siem Reap, Cambodia, 10-14 December 2018 organized by ILO regional office Bankok

2. Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development– In line with Agenda 2030 April 9 – 27, 2018, in Sweden, organized by SIDA

3. Regional follow up Program “ITP: 318: International Training Programme, “Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development” – in line with Agenda 2030 held from 12-16 November 2018 in Dar

37

Annual Report 2018

es Salaam, Tanzania

4. Attended a workshop on “Business Outreach and Procurement” held on 27th June 2018 at 10:00 am at Jamuna Conference Room of the World Bank Office, Dhaka

5. Attended a workshop on “Bangladesh TVET Sector Development Projection Aligned with SDG”, held on 08-10 August 2018 at the BRAC CDM–Rajendrapur, Gazipur.

6. Attended a training program on “Result-Based Monitoring and Evaluation” organized by SDIR project of ILO country office for Bangladesh in July 2018

7. Completed a certificate Train the Trainers Course on “Enhancing Supervisory Skills at Factory Level in the RMG sector of Bangladesh” organized by ITCILO under SDIR project of ILO Country office for Bangladesh in May 2018

8. Completed certificate ToT on “Key elements of sound Industrial Relations Systems and best HR practices to promote Dialogue at workplace level “ organized by ITCILO under SDIR project of ILO Country office for Bangladesh in March 2018

Mr. Habibur Rahman

Advanced International Training Programme

Productive Employment and Decent Work for Sustainable Development

in line with agenda 2030

held during September 17-October 5, 2018 in Sweden

The follow-up programme held on January 21, 2019.

38

Annual Report 2018

Snapshots from Training Activities 2018

39

Annual Report 2018

Snapshots from Training Activities 2018

40

Annual Report 2018

41

Annual Report 2018

42

Annual Report 2018

43

Annual Report 2018

44

Annual Report 2018

45

Annual Report 2018

46

Annual Report 2018

47

Annual Report 2018

48

Annual Report 2018

49

Annual Report 2018

50

Annual Report 2018

51

Annual Report 2018

REPRESENTATIVES ON THE LABOUR COURTS

kÖg Av`vjZ t

Av`vj‡Zi bvg gvwjK cÖwZwbwa

1g kÖg Av`vjZ, XvKv

1| Rbve †gvt †Zvdv¾j †nv‡mb

Dc-gnve¨e¯’vcK (AvBb)

evsjv‡`k cvUKj K‡c©v‡ikb

Av`gR †KvU©

115-120, gwZwSj ev/G, XvKv-1000|

2| Rbve †gvt dRjyj nK

Dc-gyL¨ cwiKíbv e¨e¯’vcK

weAvBWweøDwUwm

5, w`jKzkv ev/G, XvKv-1000|

3| Rbve †gvt iwdKzj Bmjvg

R‡q›U †m‡µUvix (†jevi)

evsjv‡`k Mv‡g©›Um g¨vbyd¨vKPvivm© GÐ G·‡cvU©vm©

G‡mvwm‡qkb (wewRGgBG)

wewRGgBG Kg‡cø· (4_© Zjv)

23/1, cvš’c_ wjsK †ivW, KvIivbevRvi

XvKv-1215|

4| Rbve †gvt gwbiæj Bmjvg

†nW Ad wnDg¨vb wi‡mv‡m©m GÐ wjM¨vj g¨vUvm©

†mvm¨vjgv‡K©wUs†Kv¤úvbx

GmGgwm UvIqvi, 33 ebvbx wm.G., XvKv-1213|

5| Rbve G, †K, Gg, wd‡ivR Avjg

WvB‡i±i, wnDg¨vb wi‡mv‡m©m

Møv‡·vw¯§_K¬vBb evsjv‡`k wjwg‡UW

nvDR # 2G, †ivW # 138, ¸jkvb-1

XvKv-1212|

6| Rbve†gvnv¤§`wmivRyjBmjvg

†Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi, GWwgb GÐ Kgcøv‡qÝ

GBP, Avi, †U·UvBj wgjm wjt

4 K‡b©vcvov, mvfvi, XvKv|

52

Annual Report 2018

2q kÖg Av`vjZ, XvKv

1| Rbve †gvt Avãyj gvbœvb

e¨e¯’vcK (†evW© I †Kvt) wmwm

we‡RGgwm

115-120, gwZwSj ev/G, XvKv-1000|

2| Rbveb~i†gvnv¤§`

AvBb Kg©KZ©v I Dc-gyL¨ µq e¨e¯’vcK

weAvBWweøDwUwm


3| Rbve †gvt knx`yj nK

†Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi (GWwgb GÐ Kgcøv‡qÝ)

†gWjvi G¨vcv‡ijm wjt

cøU bs-4, `viæm mvjvg †ivW, †m±i-1

wgicyi, XvKv-1216|

4| Rbve †R, GBP kv‡n`x

Gwmm‡U›U-fvBm †cÖwm‡W›U

GBP Avi GÐ GWwgb

wR-4 wmwKDwiwU mvwf©‡mm evsjv‡`k (cÖvt) wjt

nvDR # †K 1, mviIqvÏ©x GwfwbD, evwiaviv

XvKv-1212|

5| Rbve Avãym mvjvg

†WcywU †Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi

I‡c· GÐ wmbnv †U·UvBj MÖæc

82, gnvLvjx wm.G., XvKv-1212|

6| Rbve Kgj miKvi

wmwbqi g¨v‡bRvi

GBP, Avi Kgcøv‡qÝ GÐ GWwgb

ZvbvR d¨vkb wjwg‡UW

216, kvgxg Kg‡cø·, mZxk †ivW, MvwRcyiv

UsMx, MvRxcyi|

53

Annual Report 2018

3q kÖg Av`vjZ, XvKv

1| Rbve Gg, G, Inve

g¨v‡bRvi (GWwgb)

c~evjx RyU wgjm& wjt


2| Rbve †gv¯Ídv AvãyÏv‡qb

g¨v‡bRvi (GWwgb)

cÖvBgK‡¤úvwRUwgjm&wjt

†mbv Kj¨vY feb (9g Zjv)

195, gwZwSj ev/G, XvKv-1000|

3| Rbve bvivqb P›`ª †jva

B‡÷U Awdmvi

Kzgyw`bx I‡qj‡dqvi Uªv÷ Ae †e½j (wewW) wjt

72, wmivR-D`-‡`Šjv †ivW

bvivqbMÄ-1400|

4| Rbve †gvt gvndzRyi ingvb

wmwbqi g¨v‡bRvi KgcøvqvÝ

wW,we, Gj MÖæc

wewRGgBG Kg‡cø· (13 Zjv), 23/1, cvš’c_ wjsK

†ivW

KvIivb evRvi, XvKv-1215|

5| Rbve kvidzÏxb Avn‡g` kixd

g¨v‡bwRs WvB‡i±i

†dqvi‡gb wjwg‡UW

9/wW, k¨vgjx, nvDR # wW-2/4, †ivW # 1

k¨vgjx, XvKv|

6| Rbve †gvt wejøvj †nv‡mb

†nW Ad GBP Avi GÐ KgcøvqvÝ

†dwÝ d¨vkb myBUvim wjt (nvbœvb MÖæc)

1153-54, knx` wmwÏK †ivW

†evW© evRvi, MvRxcyi|

54

Annual Report 2018

1g kÖg Av`vjZ, PÆMÖvg

1| RbveMvRx†gvnv¤§`dwmDjAvjg

Dc-gnve¨e¯’vcK (Drcv`b I wjqv‡Rv Kg©KZ©v)

we‡RGgwm

mvËvi†P¤^vi

99, AvMÖvev` ev/G, PÆMÖvg|

2| Rbve G, Gg,Gg, mv¾v`

g¨v‡bRvi, GWwgb GÐ †jevi wi‡jkÝ

evR©vi †cB›Um evsjv‡`k wjt

43/3, P‡Æk¦ix †ivW, PÆMÖvg|

3| Rbve †Mvjvg †gv¯Ídv

†Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi (wU B‡÷Um)

Gg,Gg,B¯úvnvbxwjt

B¯úvnvbxwewìs

†kL gywRe †ivW, AvMÖvev` ev/G

PÆMÖvg|

4| Rbve†gvnv¤§`gnwmb†PŠayix

wmwbqi †WcywU †m‡µUvix

evsjv‡`k †cvkvK cÖ¯‘ZKviK I ißvbxKviK mwgwZ

(wewRGgBG)

Rxeb exgv feb (3q Zjv)

56, AvMÖvev` Av/G, PÆMÖvg|

5| Rbve L›`Kvi mvB`yi ingvb

Gwmm‡U›U †Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi (GBPAviwW)

AwRg MÖæc

12-13 wc, KvjyiNvU ev/G, PÆMÖvg|

6| Rbve G, †RW, Gg, ZveviK Djøvn

Dc‡`óv (BÛvw÷ªqvj wi‡jkÝ)

wewRGgBG

AvÂwjK Awdm



55

Annual Report 2018

2q kÖg Av`vjZ, PÆMÖvg

1| Rbve †gvt Gbv‡qZ Djøvn

Dc-e¨e¯’vcK (cÖkvmb)

nvwdR RyU wgjm

evi AvIwjqv, XvKv UªvsK †ivW, PÆMÖvg|

2| Rbve G Gb Gg mvBdzÏxb

†Pqvig¨vb óvwÛs KwgwU (†jevi I dvqvi)

wewRGgBG



3| Rbve †gvt kv‡n`yi ingvb

g¨v‡bRvi (†W‡fjc‡g›U I †Kv-AwW©‡bkb)

eªvK wU B‡óU wWwfkb

cÖ‡MÖwmf UvIqvi

1837, †kL gywRe †ivW, PÆMÖvg|

4| Rbve†gvnv¤§`gwnDÏxb

†Pqvig¨vb, †evW© Ad WvB‡i±im GÐ

Pxd Gw·wKDwUf Awdmvi

we,Gj,wc, Iqvig d¨vkb wjt

ingvb UvIqvi

1, †iBj †MU, gyev`cyi, PÆMÖvg|

5| Rbve Gm, Gg, kvn‡bIqvR

†Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi (GBP Avi GÐ GWwgb)

wK¬dUb MÖæc

4bs Rywewj †ivW, Rxeb feb, PÆMÖvg|

6| Rbve KvRx Rvwgj Avngv`

†Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi (KgcøvqvÝ)

fwj‡q›U Mv‡g©›Um wjt

572 ó¨vÛ †ivW, PÆMÖvg|

57

Annual Report 2018

kÖg Av`vjZ, Lyjbv

1| Rbve Gm, Gg G nvwjg

†WcywU g¨v‡bRvi (GWwgb)

bIqvcvov RyU wgjm& wjt

bIqvcvov, h‡kvi|

2| Rbve Avãyj nvwig ZvjyK`vi

mgš^qKg©KZ©v(kÖgIKj¨vY)

Kv‡c©wUs RyU wgjm

ivRNvU, h‡kvi|

3| Rbve †gvt kvdxDjøv Lvb

†Rbv‡ij g¨v‡bRvi

jKcyi wdk cÖ‡mwms †Kvt wjt

Pi iƒcmv, evMgiv, iƒcmv, Lyjbv|

4| Rbve Gm Gg kvwnbyj Avjg

Awdmvi K¨vk

†mvbvjx e¨vsK wjt

Lyjbv K‡c©v‡iU eªvÂ, Lyjbv|

5| Rbve jyrdi ingvb ZvjyK`vi

g¨v‡bRvi (GWwgb)

evsjv‡`k K¨vej wkí wjt

wkigwY, Lyjbv|

6| Rbve kvn Avjg wmK`vi

G¨vwm‡U›U g¨v‡bRvi (GWwgb)

Lyjbv wbDRwcÖ›U wgjm& wjt

Lvwjkcyi, Lyjbv|

58

Annual Report 2018

JudgmentHigh Court Division(Special Original Jurisdiction)Writ Petition No. 7953 of 2015Sheikh Hassan Arif JMd. Badruzzaman JNur Hossain (Md) and others...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Petitioners vsBangladesh and others ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents

IMPORTANT COURT CASES ON LABOUR MATTERS:

Md. Badruzzaman J: Initially, rule nisi was issued on 18-8-2015 in the following terms:“Let a rule nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to pay salary of Taka 14,540 (Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Forty) to the petitioners for the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer, Drafts Men (Sub-assistant Engineer) fixed by the National Pay Scale-2009 (BDT 8.000.00-14540.00) for 2nd Class Gazetted Officer and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.”

2. Thereafter, vide order dated 19-1-2016, supplementary rule nisi was issued in the following terms:“Let a supplementary rule nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the Circular dated 19-11-1994 bearing Memo No. mg (wewa-2) c‡`vbœwZ-27/94-164 published in the Establishment Manual (Vol-2) (Annexure-H) and Circular issued by the respondent No.l dated 3-12-1994 bearing Memo No. Aby/Awe/(ev¯—-

4) wW‡c v-20/92(Ask)/69 Annexure-H- 1 of the writ petition) shall not be declared ultra vires and without lawful authority for being discriminatory and mala fide and is of no legal effect.”

3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is that, the petitioners are government servants. Initially, they joined in the post of Work Assistant, Estimator and Surveyor in different offices under Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) under the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives. After completion of at least 15 years of their service and having been successful in departmental promotion examinations, they were promoted to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer (SAE) between 2003-2009. By an office order dated 24-9-2006 (Annexure-C), respondent No. 3 (Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives) fixed salary of Taka 5100-280-760, EB 30-10360 as per National Pay Scale 2005 for the Sub-Assistant Engineers who have been promoted to the said post from the post of Surveyor, Work-Assistant and Estimator. But said decision of Respondent No. 3 could not be implemented for the petitioners because of the barrier made in the impugned Circular dated 26-8-1995 (Annexure-H) issued by the Ministry of Establishment in which the post of Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma in engineering degree have been upgraded to 2nd Class post followed by another impugned Circular dated 3-12-1994 (Annexure-H-1) issued by the Ministry of Finance (respondent No. 1) re-fixing pay scale of Taka 2300-4480 from Taka 1725-3725 as per National Pay Scale 1991, corresponding to Taka 5100-10360 as per National Pay Scale 2005.

Judgement

April 13th, 2017

59

Annual Report 2018

4. Since the petitioners have been serving as Sub-Assistant Engineers, it is stated, they are entitled to the same status and pay scale which have been given to the Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma in engineering degree but they are not getting the equivalent scale which was accorded by Circular dated 19-11-1994 and Circular dated 3-12-1994 for the Sub-Assistant Engineers. Therefore, it is stated, the decisions of the respondents in giving higher pay scale and status to SAOs having diploma-in-engineering degree depriving other Sub-Assistant Engineers of getting such status and benefit are discriminatory and ultra vires to Articles 27, 29 and 31 of the Constitution. The petitioners, being Sub-Assistant Engineers, agitated their grievance to the respondents by several representations in particular representation dated 18-1-2015 followed by a notice demanding justice dated 1-2-2015 praying for granting equal pay scale and status at par with Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree and to do justice to them but the respondents did not pay any heed to their grievances.

5. In the above factual background, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition and obtained the rule and supplementary rule as quoted above.

6. The rule is opposed by respondent No. 2. the Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration and respondent No. 5, Chief Engineer Local Government Engineering Directorate by filing separate affidavits-in-opposition. The case of respondent No. 2 is that, initially the petitioners were appointed as Work Assistant, Estimator and Surveyor having no diploma-in-engineering degree and through departmental examinations they were promoted to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer. Before joining in the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer, the petitioners were well aware about the impugned Circulars dated 19-11-1994 and 3-12-1994 and their service conditions as Sub-Assistant Engineer and accordingly they joined in their respective posts and, as such, they cannot claim service benefit now equivalent to the service benefit and status at par with Sub-Assistant Engineers who possess diploma-in-engineering degree in accordance

7. The case of respondent No. 5 and that of respondent No. 2 is more or less same. Further case of respondent No. 5 is that the petitioners were appointed as Work Assistant, Estimator and Surveyor and then, through departmental examinations, they were promoted to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer from 2003 and they have no diploma-in-engineering degree. The petitioners got promotion to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer having known fully well about impugned circulars that they would not get equal pay scale and status at par with the Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree and, as such, at this stage, the petitioners cannot claim that the impugned circulars are arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution. The government, considering the constitutional as well as legal aspects of the matter, issued the impugned circulars because the educational qualification can be substantially reasonable ground for classification, and that the classification or alleged discrimination as has been occurred by the impugned notification is based on the doctrine of permissible criteria and intelligible differentia and thus intra vires the Constitution. Since the petitioners do not possess any diploma-in-engineering degree, they are not entitled to get same salary and status at par with Sub-Assistant Engineers who possess diploma-in-engineering degree.

8. Mr Sheikh Mohammad Zakir Hossain, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, by drawing this Court’s attention to the impugned Circular (Annexure-H to the application for issuance of supplementary rule), submitted that Annexure-H

with the provision of the impugned circulars. It is further stated that since the petitioners are government servants and they have come before this Court in respect of their terms and conditions of their service, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions under Article 117 of the Constitution and their proper forum lies with the Administrative Tribunal constituted by the Administrative Tribunal Act 1980. It is further stated that the respondents issued the impugned circulars after following all legal formalities and in that view, the respondents did not commit any illegality. Accordingly, this rule is liable to be discharged.

60

Annual Report 2018

dated 19-11-1994 having been issued by the order of the Hon’ble President and duly notified in the official Gazette, have the force of law within the meaning of Article 152 of the Constitution and since the writ petitioners have challenged the vires of the Circular on the ground of its constitutionality, this writ petition is maintainable. In support of this contention, he referred to the case of Bangladesh vs Shafiuddin reported in 50 DLR (AD) 27, Bangladesh vs Md Shamsul Haq reported in 59 DLR (AD) 54 and Bangladesh vs Santosh Kumar Saha reported in 21 BLC (AD) 94.

9. Learned Advocate further submitted that, though as per law the persons similarly situated should be treated equally and equal opportunity should be given to those who stand on the same footing, but the impugned Circulars though upgraded the status of Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree to 2nd Class with higher pay scale, left other Sub-Assistant Engineers and equivalents like the petitioners having had no diploma-in-engineering degree. Such classification being discriminatory is hit by Articles 27 and 29 of the Constitution and ultra vires. Accordingly, the impugned Circulars along with other circulars, orders etc. issued pursuant thereto are liable to be struck down and necessary direction should be given upon the respondents to provide similar status and pay scale to the petitioners as has been given to Sub-Assistant Engineers possessing diploma-in-engineering degree. In this connection, learned Advocate referred to the decision of the case of Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs Rabiabashri Irene reported in 8 MLR (AD) 223 = 55 DLR (AD) 132, Carew and Company (BD) Limited vs Chairman, Labaur Court reported in 50 DLR 396 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Gonesh Raj reported in 52 (1993) DIT 594.

10. As against the above submissions, Mr Rashed Zahangir, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for respondent No. 2, by drawing this Court’s attention to Article 117 of the Constitution submitted that since the petitioners are government servants and the dispute relates to the terms and conditions of their service, the only forum available to them

is before the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Article 117 read with the provisions under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 and, as such, this writ petition is not maintainable. Learned Deputy Attorney-General, by referring to paragraph 29 of the case of Sheikh Abdus Sabur vs Returning Officer reported in 41 DLR (AD) 30, submits that ‘equality before law’ is not to be interpreted in its absolute sense to hold that all persons are equal in all respects disregarding different conditions and circumstances in which they are placed or special qualities and characteristics which some of them may process but which are lacking in others. A single law, therefore, cannot he applied uniformly to all persons disregarding their basic differences with others and if these differences are identified, then the persons or things may be classified into different categories according to those distinctions; this is what is called ‘permissible criteria’ or “intelligible differentia” which have been done in the instant case. Learned Deputy Attorney-General further submits that, Sub-Assistant Engineers, who have diploma-in-engineering degree and Sub-Assistant Engineers who have no diploma-in-engineering degree can not constitute one and single class and, as such, the classification made by the impugned circular is within the constitutional mandate and, as such. consistent with the provisions under the Constitution. Learned DAG further referred to the case of State of Mysore vs P. Narasingo Rao, AIR 1968 (SC) 349.

11. Mr Mintu Kumar Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5, adopted the submissions of the learned Deputy Attorney-General. However, learned Advocate in addition, referred to a decision of the case of State of TNvs Mr. Alagappan reported in (1997; 4 SCC 401.

12. The issue whether under Article 102(1) judicial review of a decision of authority relating to terms and conditions of service of a person serving in the Republic is maintainable is no longer a res integra. On several occasions, this issue went up to the Apex Court. Finally, in Bangladesh vs Sontosh Kumar Saha, 21 BLC (AD) 94, this issue has been settled in the following language:

61

Annual Report 2018

“In this issue, this court clearly observed that except challenging the vires of law or violation of fundamental rights, judicial review of a decision of authority relating to the terms and conditions of service under article 102(1) is not permissible.”

13. It appears that Appellate Division finally fixed two criteria to maintain a writ petition for invoking judicial review under Article 102(1) by a person relating to his terms and conditions of service serving in the Republic i.e the aggrieved party have to challenge the vires of law or he/she must satisfy that his/her fundamental rights have been infringed. Now we will consider whether the petitioners have been successful in fulfilling any of two criteria.

14. It appears that the petitioners have challenged the vires of two Circulars (Annexure H and H-l). The first one (Annexure-H) was published on 19-11-1994 upgrading the status of Sub-assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree to second class leaving other Sub-assistant Engineers and equivalents and Annexure-H(l) has been issued on 3-12-1994 pursuant to Annexure-H, upgrading their pay scale from Taka 1735-3725 to Taka 2300-4480 as per National Pay Scale 1991. Annexure-H is quoted below:

Òms¯’vcb gš¿Yvjq

wewa-2 kvLv

cÖÁvcb

ZvwiLt19b‡f¤î1994Bs

5 AMÖnvqb 1401 evs

bs mg (wewa-2) c‡`vbœwZ-27/94-164- miKvi GZØviv Dc-

mnKvix cÖ‡KŠkjx I mggv‡bi c`mg~n Kg©iZ BwÄwbqvwis G

wW‡c vgvavix Kg©KZ©v‡ì 2q †kªYxi c` gh©v`v cÖ`v‡bi wm×vš—

MÖnY Kwi‡jb|

2| mKj gš¿Yvjq/wefvM‡K Zvnv‡ì Aaxb¯’ Awdmmg~n Dc-

mnKvix cÖ‡KŠkjx I mggv‡bi c‡` Kg©iZ BwÄwbqvwis-G wW‡c-

vgvavix Kg©KZ©v‡ì wØZxq †kªYxi c` gh©v`v DbœxZ Ki‡Yi Av‡`k

Rvix Kwi‡Z Ges mswk ó wb‡qvM wewa‡Z cÖ‡qvRbxq ms‡kvabx

Avbq‡bi cÖwµqv MÖnY KwiZ Aby‡iva Kiv nBj|

ivóªcwZi Av‡`kµ‡g

KvRx Aveyj Kv‡kg

Dc-mwPe (wewa-1)|

Òmsweav‡bi 29 Aby‡”Q` Ges Dc‡i Av‡jvwPZ bwRi¸wj nB‡Z

wbæwjwLZ g~jbxwZ cÖwZdwjZ nB‡Z‡Qt

K) miKvwi PvKzix‡Z wb‡qvM ev c‡`vbœwZi †¶‡Î mKj bvMwi‡Ki

my‡hv‡Mi mgZv _vwK‡e, †Kvbiƒc êlg¨ mvaviYfv‡e A‰ea,

L) GB my‡hv‡Mi mgZvi AwaKvi GKB †kªYxfy³ e¨w³e‡M©i †¶‡Î

cÖ‡hvR¨,

M) c~‡e© wewfbœ †kªbxfy³ _vwK‡j cieZ©x‡Z hw` GKB †kªYxfy³ nq

15. Now question arises as to whether the impugned Circular dated 19-11-1994 have the force of law. It appears that the Circular was issued by the order of the Hon’ble President and published in the official Gazette of Government. Law has been defined in Article 152 of the Constitution which provides that “law means any Act, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, bye-law, notification or other legal instrument, and any custom or usage, having the force of law in Bangladesh”. Annexure-H having been issued by the order of the Hon’ble President and duly notified in the official Gazette, have the force of law within the meaning of Article 152 of the Constitution. Since the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Circular, this writ petition is maintainable (ref; Govt. vs Md Shamsul Huq, 59 DLR (AD) 54).

16. A bare reading of Annexure-H and H-l suggests that the first one has classified the post of Sub-assistant Engineer and equivalents into two groups: firstly, who have diploma-in-engineering degree and secondly, who have no diploma-in-engineering degree and after such classification the Government upgraded the 1st group to 2nd Class Officers and pursuant to Annexure H the later one (Annexure-H-1) was issued upgrading their pay scale leaving the other group like the petitioners from getting such status and benefit.

17. Now question arises whether the respondents by issuing such circulars disregarded the guarantee of the Constitution in Article 27 that “all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law” and the impugned circulars are hit by the provision of Article 27 and thus ultra vires to the Constitution.

18. In Bangladesh vs. Touhid Uddin reported in 16 BLC (AD) 116 it is held:

62

Annual Report 2018

Z‡e †m‡¶‡ÎI mswk ó e¨w³eM© Ab¨vb¨ mK‡ji mwnZ my‡hv‡Mi

mgZvi AwaKvi †fvM Kwi‡e|Ó

19. In Sontosh Kumar case [21 BLC (AD) 94] our Appellate Division by analyzing a number of decisions of our jurisdiction and Indian jurisdiction explained equality before law and equal protection of law in respect of classification for the purpose of legislation and observed in paragraphs 162, 163 & 164 as follows:

“162. The expression equal protection of law or equality before law has to be interpreted in its absolute sense. All persons are equal in all respect disregarding different conditions and circumstances in which they are placed. Equal protection of law means all persons are equal in all cases. It means the persons similarly situated should be treated equally. The term equality is a dynamic concept with many aspect and diminution and it cannot be confined within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Indian Supreme Court taking into consideration Article 14 of the Constitution held that Article 14 does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. There can be permissible classification provided two conditions are satisfied namely; (a) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together for other left out of the group; (b) differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis. There cannot be any question of decimation on the ground of some acts providing for different set up and is must be taken to be a class by itself. The legislature has right to make such provision for its Constitution as it things fit subject always to the provisions of the Constitution. References in this connection are EP Roy vs TN, AIR 1974 (SC) 555, Maleka Gandhi vs India, AIR 1970 (SC) 597, Romana Shetly vs International Airport Authority, AIR 1979 (SC) 1628, Ajay Hashia vs Khalid Mujud, AIR 1983 (SC) 130, AL Kalra vs P & N Corporation of India, AIR 1984 (SC) 1361, Sree Ram Kaishna Dal Mia vs Sree SR Tendulkar, AIR 1958 (SC) 538, S Azeez Basher vs Union of India, AIR 1968 (SC) 662, Jibendra Kishore

Achary vs Province of East Pakistan, 9 DLR (SC) 21 and Kazi Mohammed Akhtaruzzaman vs Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 2252 of 2009 disposed of along with 3 (three) other writ petitions, Sheikh Abdus Sabur vs Returning Officer, 41 DLR (AD) 30 and Bangladesh vs Md Azizur Rahman, 46 DLR (AD) 19.

163. In Jibendra Kishore (supra), it has been observed, “It is not possible to formulate a comprehensive definition to the clause ‘equal protection of law’; nevertheless, some broad propositions as to its meaning have been enunciated. One of these propositions is that equal protection of the laws means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes, in like circumstances, in their lives, liberty and property and in pursuit of happiness. Another generalization more frequently stated is that the guarantee of equal protection of the laws requires that all personal shall be treated alike, under like circumstances ana conditions, both in the privileges confirmed and in the liabilities imposed. In the application of these principles, however, it has always been recognized that classification is not arbitrary or capricious, is natural and reasonable and bears a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. It is not for the Courts, in such cases, it is said, to demand from the legislature a scientific accuracy in the classification adopted. If the classification is relevant to the object of the Act, it must be upheld unless the relevancy is too remote or fanciful. A classification that proceeds on irrelevant consideration, such as differences in race, colour or religion will certainly be rejected by the Courts. Applying these tests to the present case, it cannot but be held that if, in consequence of abolishing the system of private rent for agricultural land, it also became necessary to make some provision for the outgoing landlords, the classification of the landlords in the basis of their net incomes at the time of their expropriation was a necessary, and not an unreasonable classification.

164. In Sheikh Abdus Sabur (supra), this court held: “Equality before law” is not to be interpreted in its absolute sense to hold that all persons are equal in

63

Annual Report 2018

all respects disregarding different conditions and circumstances in which they are placed or special qualities and characteristics which some of them may possess but which are lacking in others. The term ‘protection of equal law’ is used to mean that all persons or things are not equal in all cases and that persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Equal protection is the guarantee that similar people will be dealt with in a similar way and that people of different circumstances will not be treated as if they the same. A single law therefore cannot be applied uniformly to all persons disregarding their basic differences with others; and if these then differences are identified, then the persons or things may be dissatisfied into different categories according to those distinctions; this is what is called’ permissible criteria’ or “intelligible differentia”. The legislature while proceeding to make law with certain object in view, which is either to remove some evil or to confer some benefit, has power a make classification on reasonable basis. Classification of persons for the purpose of legislation is different from class legislation, which is forbidden. To stand the test of ‘equality’ a classification, besides being based on intelligent differentia, must have reasonable nexus with the object the legislature intends to achieve by making the classification. A classification is reasonable if it aims at giving special treatment to a backward section of the population; it is also permissible to deal out distributive justice by taxing the privileged class and subsidizing the poor section of the people. The above views have been approved in Azizur Rahman (supra). “ (underlined by us)

20. In Smt. Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narayan, AIR 1975, (SC) 2279 it was held that, “All who are equal are equal in the eye of law”, meaning that it will not accord favoured treatment to persons within the same class.”

21. The sum and substance of the observations made in aforesaid Sontosh Kumar, Jibendra Kishore, Shaikh Abdus Sabur and Smt. Indira Gandhi (supra) cases follows that there shall be no discrimination to persons within the same class and that persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Equal

protection is the guarantee that similar people will be dealt with in a similar way and that people of different circumstances will not be treated as if they were the same. All who are equal are equal in the eye of law which means that it will not accord favoured treatment to persons within the same class. The concept of equality before law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike.

22. But the question is what does this ambiguous and crucial phrase ‘similarly situated’ mean? Answer has been given in the case of Mohammad Shujat All vs Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1631 saying that “Where are we to look for the test of similarity of situation which determines the reasonableness of a classification? The inescapable answer is that we must look beyond the classification to the purpose of the law. A reasonable classification is one which includes all persons or things similarly situated with respect to the purpose of the law. There should be no discrimination between one person or thing and another, if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same. This is sometimes epigrammatically described by saying that what the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity requires is that among equals, the law should be equal and that like should be treated alike...... . . . . . . . . . “.

23. All employees standing on the same position (in this case Sub-Assistant Engineers and equivalents) make one class irrespective of their educational qualifications. According to the equality doctrine, no classification can be made among the employees holding same post for giving special status and benefits because of having special educational qualification or degree. In this case, as and when the petitioners were promoted to post of Sub-Assistant Engineer irrespective of their educational qualification, they grouped together with other Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree and thus made one class. Sub-Assistant Engineers or equivalents cannot be classified into two groups namely Sub-Assistant Engineers having

64

Annual Report 2018

diploma-in-engineering degree in one group and Sub-Assistant Engineers and equivalents having no diploma-in-engineering degree in another group for the purpose of up-gradation of status and for giving special benefits or privileges to the 1st group and thereby depriving the other group of such status, benefits and privileges etc.

24. It appears that the Circular dated 19-11-1994 (Annexure-H to the application for supplementary rule) clearly made two classes of Sub-assistant Engineers and equivalents; first-Sub-assistant Engineer having diploma-in-engineering degree and second- Sub-assistant Engineer having no diploma-in-engineering degree by putting the words ÒBwÄwbqvwis-G wW‡c vgvavixÓ in the said circular and thereby upgraded the status of the 1st group as 2nd Class posts depriving the 2nd group of giving such status and benefit. This classification in the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer, on the face of it, is discriminatory and inconsistent with the previsions of Article 27 of the Constitution and thus ultra vires and void according to the provision under Article 26 (1) of the Constitution and, accordingly, the words ÒBwÄwbqvwis-G wW‡c vgvavixÓ employed in Annexure-H are liable to be struck down.

25. On the other hand, on perusal of Annexure-H-1 it appears that the same has been issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 3-12-1994 pursuant to Circular dated 19-11-1994 re-fixing the pay scale for Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree from Taka 1725-3725 to Taka 2300-4480 as per National Pay Scale 1991 leaving other Sub-Assistant Engineers and equivalents from getting such benefit.

26. It is the case of the petitioners that, after their promotion in the post of Sub-assistant Engineer or equivalent posts, they stood on the same footing or at par with Sub-assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree, but the government by the impugned Circular upgraded the pay scale for them by depriving the petitioners and equivalents from getting such increased salary and other service

benefits and thereby they have been discriminated and thus the action of the respondents has violated the principle of “Equal Pay for Equal Work.”

27. It is true that the principle of “Equal pay for Equal work” is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. Article 20(1) proclaims that everyone shall be paid for his work based on the principle ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work’ as a directive principle of State Policy. But the principle “Equal pay for Equal Work” has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 27 of the Constitution. References in this connection are Carew and Company Limited vs Chairman, Labor Court, 50 DLR 396, Bangladesh vs Shamsul Haq, 59 DLR (AD) 54 and Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs Rabia Bashri Irene 8 MLR (AD) 223=55 DLR (AD) 132.

28. In Carew and Company Limited (supra) it was held that “In such circumstances we fail to understand why the petitioner refused the similar benefits to the respondent Nos.2 to 22 when they became illegible under the agreement being promoted to the post of office assistants or equivalents and thus became entitled to get the scale. Giving benefit to some and denying the same to others under the same agreement and service condition, is not only illegal but also offends fundamental rights of the respondents garanteed under Articles 28 and 29 of the Constitution. We, therefore, hold that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the agreement is also applicable to the respondents.”

29. In Shamsul Haq (supra), our Apex Court held: “The respondent and Personal Officers of the Secretariat having been similarly situated have been discriminated and cannot be treated differently and is repugnant to the equality doctrine and, under like circumstances and conditions, should be treated alike both in their rights and privilege.”

30. In Bangladesh Biman Corporation (supra) it was held: “Since one employees of the Corporation

65

Annual Report 2018

inter’ se standing in the similar situation have not been treated in the similar manner or in other words have been treated differently from the others the contention of the writ-petitioners that they have been discriminated has rightly been found genuine by the High Court Division.”

31. Employees are entitled to receive equal pay who are discharging the same duties as their counterparts (Ref. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Ganesh Razak, 52 (1993) DLT 594). The principle of equal pay for equal work must prevail and inequality in wages cannot be allowed to stand (UP Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd vs Its Workmen, AIR 1990 SC 495).

32. It appears that, by order dated 3-12-1994(Annexure-H-1),the Government amended ÒPvKzix †eZb I fvZvw`)1997Ó re-fixing the pay scale of Taka 2300-4480 for the Sub-Assistant Engineer who possesses diploma-in-engineering degree leaving other Sub-Assistant Engineers and equivalents. This memo was issued pursuant to Annexure-H dated 19-11-1994 to giving financial benefit to the Sub-Assistant Engineers of the same class though as per constitutional mandate all service holders standing on the same class are entitled to same service benefit and status. Accordingly, we are of the view that, the Administrative order dated 3-12-1994 upgrading the pay scale of Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree leaving other sub- assistant engineers and equivalents based on extraneous or irrelevant consideration, discriminatory, actuated by mala fides, perverse and manifestly wrong and also liable to be struck down.

33. Now, question arises from which date the petitioners and left out sub-assistant engineers and equivalents would get the benefit of this judgment.

34. Since the impugned Circulars (Annexures-H and H-1) have come into force long back in 1994 but the petitioners have challenged those in a belated stage and since the implementation of our decision retrospectively may incur huge monetary involvement

of the government exchequer, we are of the view that, this verdict would operate prospectively from the date of this judgment in respect of giving financial benefit to the left out sub-assistant engineers and equivalents of the Government functionary including the petitioners.

35. In view of the discussions made above, we find merit in this rule.

36. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute however, without any order as to costs.

37. Thus, the impugned Circulars dated 19-11-1994 (Annexure-H) and 3-12-1994 (Annexure-H-1), so far insertion of words ÒBwÄwbqvwis-G wW‡c vgvavixÓ therein, are declared ultra vires the Constitution, void and those words are struck-down from those Circulars prospectively with effect from today.

38. The respondents are directed to provide equal pay scale, status and other service benefits to the petitioners as have been provided by the impugned Circulars to the Sub-Assistant Engineers having diploma-in-engineering degree with effect from the date of pronouncement of this judgment within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment in accordance with law.

39. It is also declared that, this judgment would operate as a judgment in-rem in respect of all Sub-Assistant Engineers and equivalents serving under the Government functionaries.

Communicate a copy of this judgment at once.Ed.

Source: The Dhaka Law Reports (September 2017)

66

Annual Report 2018

MARCHJudgement

Appellate Division Civil)(Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2012)

Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah JNazmun Ara Sultanna JMd Imman Ali JMd Nizamul Hoq JKazi Ariful Islam ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant vsBangladesh Krishi Bank and others...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RespondentsJudgmentJanuary 17th, 2017

1. Md Abdul Wahhab Miah J : This appeal, by leave, is from the decision dated the 1st day of November, 2009 passed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No.59 of 2005 allowing the same.

2. Facts relevant to dispose this appeal are that the appellant as the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) filed an application before the Administrative Tribunal, Khulna under section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980, in short, the Act, 1980 for setting aside the order dated 12-6-2003 issued under the signature by the Assistant General Manager, Bangladesh Krishi Bank (opposite party No.6 before the Administrative Tribunal) dismissing him from service and also for arrear salary, seniority and other service benefits as he was entitled to. The application was registered as Administrative Tribunal Case No. 1 of 2004.

3. In the application, it was stated, inter alia, that the appellant had entered into the service of Rupali Bank on 11-7-1972 as a cashier-cum-clerk. He was promoted as a Junior Officer of Rupali Bank and transferred to Rupali Bank, Sonadia Branch in Satkhira. The Government of Bangladesh decided to hand over Sonadia Branch of Rupali Bank to Bangladesh Krishi Bank. The appellant opted for the service in Bangladesh Krishi Bank on 1-11-1982 and was posted as Manager of Sonadia Branch. Thereafter, the appellant was transferred to Shahpur Bazaar Branch in Khulna as Manager. On 9-3-1996 the appellant was promoted as the Principal Officer. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant by the Managing Director of Bangladesh Krishi Bank vide Memo No. cÖKvtKe¨wet6t01t1788/93-94 dated 13-11-1996 alleging, inter-alia, that he did not properly supervise the Project Officers who were in charge of cold storages which were pledged to Bangladesh Krishi Bank as security against the loans granted. The allegations against the appellant were mainly for not properly and adequately supervising the work of the project officers who were in charge of pledged godowns. There was no allegation of corruption or misappropriation. In the charge-sheet dated 13-11-1996, the appellant was asked whether, in addition to the written statement in defence, he wanted to have a personal hearing. The appellant duly submitted his statement in defence on 26-12-1996 denying the material allegations brought against him and requesting for a personal hearing. Without granting any personal hearing, which was mandated in bidhi 41 of evsjv‡`k K…wl e¨vsK-Gi Kg©Pvix PvKzix cÖweavbgvjv, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Bidhimala, 1988) and without considering the statements in defence of the appellant, an enquiry officer was appointed on 28-1-1997 by the Deputy General Manager by order of the General Manager. The enquiry officer did not examine any witness in presence of the appellant, but he asked the appellant to make a written reply to a number of questions. Thereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report. On 26-9-1999, a second show cause notice was issued by

67

Annual Report 2018

the Deputy General Manager stating “By order”. It was not stated under whose order the second show cause notice was issued. Ultimately, on 12-6-2003, the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service was communicated by the Assistant General Manager, ‘by order’ of the Managing Director. By this time, the appellant completed 31 years of service without ever having any adverse report or departmental proceedings. Against the said order of dismissal, the appellant preferred an appeal on 4-8-2003 under bidhi 46 of the Bidhimala, 1988. The appeal was rejected by the Board of Directors and the order was communicated by the Deputy General Manager on 13-11-2003; hence the appellant filed the administrative tribunal case as stated hereinbefore.

4. The case was contested by the respondents herein as the opposite parties by filing a written objection asserting that the case was not maintainable as the departmental action was taken against the appellant in accordance with the law.

5. The Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 5-12-2004, allowed the case declaring the impugned order of dismissal of the appellant from service as illegal and was of no legal effect and not binding upon him and that he was still in service and entitled to arrear salaries with restoration of seniority. Against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, the respondents preferred Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 59 of 2005 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned decision allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal. Against the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the appellant filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2543 of 2009 before this Division and leave was granted to consider the following grounds:

“I. For that Bangladesh Krishi Bank was established under PO No. 27 of 1973. In article 38, only the Bank (meaning the Board of Directors) can appoint. As there is no delegation, an order of dismissal can be made only by the Board. In the instant case, Board did not pass final order hence the order is without jurisdiction and void ab-initio,

II. For that in regulation 41 of Bangladesh Krishi Bank Employees Service Regulations, 1988. a personal hearing by the punishing authority/appointing authority is mandatory. Similar provision in the Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1985 was noticed and approved in 10 MLR (AD) 74 holding that the entire proceeding including, the order of dismissal would be vitiated if the mandatory provision of personal hearing is not complied with.

III. For that a disciplinary proceeding, framing of charge, personal hearing appointment of inquiry officer, second show cause notice and final decision must be taken by the appointing authority. In this case, there was clear violation of the mandatory rules.

IV. For that the finding of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner was heard in person and he admitted his inefficiency is not based on record and hence error. The petitioner was charged with supervisory lapses and he only expressed regret if there were any unintentional lapses.”

6. Mr Abdur Rab Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has stressed the grounds on which leave was granted and he supported the order of the Administrative Tribunal.

7. From the order of the Administrative Tribunal, it appears that it, in fact, allowed the Administrative Tribunal case only on one ground, ie the order of dismissal was not passed by the Appointing authority and in holding so,

68

Annual Report 2018

the Tribunal further held that the appointing authority of the appellant was the Board of Directors of Bangladesh Krishi Bank, but the charge was framed the Inquiry Officer was appointed and the second show cause notice mentioning the proposed punishment was issued at the order of Deputy General Manager of the Management Division-3 at the order of the General Manager (Administration) and then the order of dismissal was passed at the order of the Assistant General Manager (Admin) and this was not made in with the law. The Tribunal further held that the order of dismissal could not be passed by the delegate on the basis of power delegated to him. The Tribunal also found that the order of dismissal was passed in violation of article 135(1) of the Constitution which provided that the order of dismissal must be passed by the appointing authority. The Tribunal concluded that though the Board of Directors was the appointing authority of the appellant, framing of charge to inquire into the allegations brought in the charge, appointment of an inquiry officer and the issuance of second show cause notice proposing the proposed punishment, all were done by the Deputy General Manager and General Manager (Admin). Therefore, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal in a superficial way stated that the order of dismissal was passed against the principles of natural justice without stating how and in what manner the principles of natural justice were violated.

8. From the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, it appears that it allowed the appeal on the finding that

“It is on record that the impugned order was passed by the proper authority and the Deputy General Manager only to comply on behalf of the authority.It appears from the departmental case record that the petitioner-respondent was also heard in person and he admitted his inefficiency and prayed for mercy but it was not convincing to the authority and as a result final order of dismissal was passed.” The Appellate Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case further found that the charges were brought against the appellant on the basis of records and there was little scope for him to deny the material facts incorporated in the charge on the basis of the records and that the appellant was given the opportunity of being heard in accordance with the Rules and he was not “able to bring any irregularity in the proceeding case.”

9. In order to see whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the framing of charge, the appointment of inquiry officer, the inquiry held and the issuance of show cause notice proposing punishment was issued by inappropriate authority. We have looked into the President’s Order No. 27 of 1973 (PO 27 of 1973) titled as the Bangladesh Krishi Bank Order, 1973.

10. Sub-article (1) of Article 35 of the PO clearly shows that the Board may, with the previous approval of the Government, make regulations not inconsistent with the Order or the rules to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Order and the efficient conduct of the affairs of the Bank.

11. Sub-article (2)(d) of Article 35 clearly shows that regulations may be made as to the recruitment of the employees of the Bank, the terms and conditions of their services, the constitution and management of Provident Fund for the employees of the Bank and all other matters connected with any of these things, Article 36 of PO 27 of 1973 has provided that all the rules and the regulations made under the Order shall be published in the official Gazette. And it appears that pursuant to Article 35 of PO 27 of 1973, the Board of Directors framed the Bidhimala, 1988 about the terms and conditions of the service of the Bank and the same was duly published in the Bangladesh Gazette on 20th October, 1988 and in this Bidhimala, bidhi 2(P) has defined KZ…©c¶ as under: Ò(P) ÒKZ…c¶Ó ewj‡Z wb‡qvMKvix KZ…©c¶ wKsev KZ…©c‡¶i ¶gZv cÖ‡qvM Kivi Rb¨ ZrKZ…©K g‡bvbxZ †Kvb Kg©KZ©v‡K eySvB‡e Ges D³ Kg©KZ©vi

D×©Zb †Kvb Kg©KZ©vI Bnvi Aš‘f~©³ nB‡eb|Ó

69

Annual Report 2018

I2. So, a reading of clause ‘cha’ of bidhi 2 of the Bidhimala, 1988 clearly shows that the appointing authority can always empower an officer of the Bank to exercise the power of the appointing authority.

13. From the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, it appears that it gave clear finding that the impugned order was passed by the proper authority and the Deputy General Manager only complied with it on behalf of the authority.

14. Mr Abdur Rab Chowdhury could not dislodge this finding of the Appellate Tribunal by referring to any materials on record and any bidhi of the Bidhimala, 1988 and thus making the decision of the Appellate Tribunal fallible.

Therefore we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.Ed.

Source: The Dhaka Law Reports (December 2017)

APRIL JUDGMENT

Appellate Division

Judgment

(Civil Appeal No. 08 of 2012)Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah JNazmun Ara Sultana JMd Imman Ali JMd Nizamul Hoq JMahmudul Haque (Md) ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AppellantvsGovernment of Banglaesh ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Respondents

March 30th, 2016

Md Abdul Wahhab Mian J : This appeal, by leave, is from the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 154 of 2007 allowing the same.

2. The appellant as the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) filed an application before the Administrative Tribunal No.1, Dhaka under section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 (the Act) for declaring the order vide Memo No. evm-KKm/BDwbU -5/ c‡`vbœwZ-39/2005/257 dated 25-8-2005 and Memo No. kªKg/kv-10/†R¨ôZv-2/03/349 dated 26-10-2005 as illegal, arbitrary, incompetent, without lawful authority and was of no legal effect and also for declaration that he was entitled to his seniority on the basis of his past service with all the attendant benefits towards promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted along with increments, time-scale, fixation of pay etc. with arrears.

3. In the application, it was stated, inter-alia, that the appellant was first appointed on 9- 1 - 1988 as Economic Investigator in the scale of taka 900-60- 1550-EB-75-207S under Bangladesh Manpower Planning Center of the Ministry of Labour and Manpower vide No. BMPC/RNE-9/83-86 (Part)/37/1(I5). The appellant served in that

70

Annual Report 2018

capacity after joining there on 12-1-1988 with full satisfaction of the authority concerned upto 10-5-1989 when due to the administrative reorganization, the Department of Bangladesh Manpower Training Center was abolished and its officers and staffs were declared surplus. The case of the surplus employees was taken over by the Ministry of Establishment for absorption in different Government offices under section 2(E) of the Surplus Public Servants Absorption Ordinance, 1985 (the Ordinance, 1985). In the process, the Ministry of Establishment by its Memo No. ME (SP) 12/89-800/1(4) dated 11-12-1990 recommended for absorption of the appellant in the post of Labour Inspector (General) of Factories and Establishment in the scale of Taka 900-2,075 with direction to absorb him under sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Ordinance, 1985. Accordingly, the Ministry of Labour and Manpower directed the Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishment to absorb the appellant as Labour Inspector (General) vide Memo No.Sha-6/A-I/90 dated 19-12-1990. On receipt of the order of the Ministry, the Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishment by notification vide No.Sha:Ni-1/90/319 dated 26-12-1990 absorbed the appellant in the post of Labour Inspector (General) in the scale of taka 900-2075. In this notification, the Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishment added a note that the appellant’s seniority would be counted from the date of his joining in that office, because his previous service was non-gazetted. The unemployed appellant was then compelled to accept the job. However, after joining the post as Labour Inspector (General), the appellant applied for his seniority in the service from the date of his joining in the feeder post, that is, the post of-Economic Investigator on 12-1-1988. The duly constituted seniority gradation committee considered the case of the appellant and after consulting with the relevant service rules and other materials took the decision to compute the seniority of the appellant and one Md Shamsul Alam from the date of their joining in the parent posts and consequently, the Ministry of Labour and Manpower issued a seniority list to that effect vide Memo No. kv/6/G-3/91/160/1(5) dated 18-7-1991. Thereafter, the Ministry of Labour and Manpower sent the necessary papers of the class-II officers of the Directorate of Labour and the Department of the Inspection for Factories and Establishments to the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Ministry of Establishment to verify and select the seniority of the officers; the PSC upon perusal of the necessary papers, examining the relevant laws and after consulting the Ministry of Establishment published a seniority list of the class-II officers of both the departments, i.e Directorate of Labour and the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments giving effect from the date of joining the posts of the parent departments/offices in the case of the absorbed employees vide Memo No. evmt KKg/Gg.Avi.4/1 Gm-47/97/4696 dated 18-9-1997 issuei under the signature of the secretary of the PSC.

4. Some Labour Inspectors raising objection against the said seniority list submitted a representation to the Ministry of Labour and Manpower so far as the same related to the absorbed employees and consequently, the matter was placed in the coordination meeting held on 9-10-1997 headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Manpower; the meeting refused the prayer of the so-called aggrieved employees on the clear assertion that there was no scope of sending the matter to the Ministry of Establishment as the PSC in the earlier occasion had taken decision upon the opinion of the Ministry of Establishment. The officers, namely, Abul Hossain who had been absorbed in the post of Labour Inspector (General) in the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, Md Rezaul Huq Chowdhury, Md Ishaq Mia and Md Shamsul Alam absorbed in the Directorate of Labour who were the Economic Investigators of the Department of Bangladesh Manpower Planning Center and were declared surplus were given seniority from the date of their first appointments. Their names appeared in the seniority list prepared by the PSC and on the basis of that seniority list they have already been promoted to the higher posts, i.e. Assistant Chief Inspector and Assistant Directors of Labour. Two vacancies occurred in the post of the Assistant Chief Inspector (General) to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Labour Inspectors (General) according to the seniority. The appellant and two others submitted their prayers for promotion in the vacant position. The Chief Inspector of Factories and

71

Annual Report 2018

Establishments forwarded the applications of Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment and the Secretary forwarded the matter to the PSC, without forwarding the application of the appellant whose name stood at serial No. 1 of the seniority list. The names of Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam were at serial Nos. 2 and 3. This was done with a malafide intention to deprive the appellant of promotion; the note/recommendation was not sent to the PSC through the Ministry of Establishment. The PSC, by exercising high executive fiat and without consulting the Ministry of Establishment, opened the finalized seniority issue of the appellant and others and with a malafide intention took an illegal and arbitrary decision to place Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam before the position of the appellant vide Memo No. evm-KKg/

Gg.Avi-4/1 G-47/97/4696 ZvwiL 18-9-2007 only to enable them to be promoted to the vacant posts. The Secretary of the PSC forwarded the decision of the Commission to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, vide Memo No. evm-KKm/BDwbU-5/†R¨ôZv-17/2004/127 ZvwiLt 4-5-2005. The PSC not only revised the seniority list but also recommended Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam, whose names were at serial Nos.2 and 3 in the finally published seniority list for promotion to the post of Assistant Chief Inspector (General) vide Memo No.evm/KKm/

BDwbU-5/c‡`vbœwZ -39/2005/257 ZvwiLt 25/08/2005. In the circum-stances, finding no other alternative, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 6814 of 2005 before the High Court Division challenging the impugned order of the PSC dated 25-8-2005, but the said petition was rejected on 18-10-2005 on the ground of jurisdiction. After the order of the High Court Division, the Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishments requested the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment to promote Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam to the post of Assistant Chief Inspector by his office Memo No. mtwet12/97/351/cÖtct ZvwiL 25-10-2005 and on the next day the Ministry vide its Memo No. kªKg/kv-10/†R¨ôZv-2/03-349 ZvwiL 26/10/2005 promoted Abu Tayeb, Khan and Md Faridul Islam to the position of Assistant Chief Inspector (General). Abu Tayeb Khan was posted in the Head Office, Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, Dhaka and Md Faridul Islam was posted in the Divisional Office of the Inspection of Factories and Establishments, Chittagong. As per schedule No.1 to the Rules of Business, 1996, the decision of the Ministry of Establishment on absorption of the surplus employees is final and before taking any decision the PSC has to take opinion of the Ministry of Establishment. The seniority of the absorbed officers from non-gazetted posts of the same pay and scale has been clarified in the Establishments Ministry’s Memo No. mg (wewa-2) †R¨ôZv-53/94-91 ZvwiL 16-6-1996 superseding all the previous orders and decisions. The application was registered as Administrative Tribunal Case No. 240 of 2005.

5. The case was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) in the form of filing written replies contending, inter-alia, that the appellant accepted the condition mentioned in the appointment letter that his seniority would be counted from the date of joining the new gazetted post. The minutes of the meeting dated 9-10-1997 signed by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment on 15-1-1998 as submitted by the appellant is an internal decision only. “No order of Memorandum confirming the same” was issued by the Ministry in that respect because the seniority of the appellant along with others which was given earlier was not right. The Ordinance, 1985 is the milestone and the guidelines for absorbing the surplus personnel and giving them the required seniority. In paragraph-2 of the application, the appellant has mentioned section 2(e) of the Ordinance, 1985 in favour of his absorption, but he tactfully with a malafide and fabricated intention avoided section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985. Section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985 clearly stated that the seniority of a surplus public servant will be given on the basis of government circular issued from time to time. On 20-3-1979, the Establishment Division vide their Circular No. ED(R-11) S-59/77-25(500) dated Dhaka the 20th March, 1979 stated in para (1) that a surplus person should be allowed to count his past service in the parent department for fixation of his seniority if he is appointed in the absorbing department to an equivalent post or cadre. The post of Economic Investigator’ of the appellant in the parent department was a non-gazetted post and, as such, the previous post was not an equivalent post or equivalent cadre. The post of Labour Inspector (General) in the present department is a class-II gazetted post

72

Annual Report 2018

and, as such, is a higher class of post which is not equivalent to the previous post. So, the appellant cannot get seniority by adding two un-equivalent and unequal posts and it was clearly mentioned in his appointment letter in the department.

6. The appointment letter was cent percent correct and any benefit given violating the conditions of the appointment letter was faulty. Besides, the Establishment Ministry vide its Memo No. (wewa-2) †R¨ôZv- 97/93-05 dated 4-1-1994 made a clarification to the effect that though the scales of the previous and present post were same, due to inferior status the seniority could not be given adding the previous post. The promotion of Abul Hossain and others as mentioned in the application was made suppressing the actual facts and figures to the PSC. That was a faulty decision. These incumbents suppressed the important guidelines of section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985 with a view to fulfill their ill and ulterior motives and to enjoy the illegal benefits from the legal authority, that is, from the PSC as well as suppressed the actual facts. Unfortunately, they succeeded to have a faulty seniority list vide PSC’s Memo No. evmKK/GmAvi/1 Gmt 47/97/4696 dated 18-9-1997 and accordingly, some of them got promotion earlier. This fault was detected by the PSC on 4-5-2005 and they correctly placed the appellant just below Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam vide their letter No. evmKK/

BDwbU-5/ †Rô¨Zv-17/2004/127 dated 4-5-2005 and finally they have been recommended for promotion vide PSC’s letter No. evmKK/BDwbU-5/c‡`vbœwZ-39/2005/257 dated 26-10-2005 and accordingly, their notification of promotion was issued vide Memo No. kªgK/kv-10/‡Rô¨Zv-2/03/349 dated 26-10-2005 and they have been serving in the promoted post of Assistant Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishment (General) since 27-10-2005. Their promotion order was published in the Gazette on 26-1-2005. The cases of Abul Hossain of this department and Rezaul Haque Chowdhury, Md Ishaq Mia and Md Shamsul Haque of other department cannot stand as a legal claim on the part of the appellant because an unjust and faulty earlier decision cannot stand forever. When the fault is detected that cannot be followed further. So, the authority, i.e. PSC reviewed and reconstructed the seniority of Abu Tayeb Khan, Md Faridul Islam and the appellant. When the two posts of Assistant Chief Inspector (General) were vacant, the Ministry of Labour and Employment reviewing the seniority list sent the same to the PSC for final approval in the form of a statement. In doing so nothing was suppressed and there was no malafide behind the same with a view to deprive anybody. The PSC thoroughly examined all the cases fairly on the basis of the Ordinance and found no material and substance to give seniority to the appellant and, as such, he was genuinely placed below Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam who have been working in the gazetted feeder post of Labour Inspectors (General) as per Recruitment Rules of the Department since longer time than the appellant. So, the complaint of exercising high executive fiat on the part of PSC with malafide intention is not true and totally baseless. In the application, the appellant has not impugned or challenged the revision of gradation of three persons in question, recommendation for promotion as well as the order of promotion. The writ petition filed by the appellant was not rejected on the ground of jurisdiction, but on the ground of suppression of facts. The Establishment Ministry’s Memo No. mg(wewa-2)/†R¨ôZv-53/94-91 dated 16-6-1996

is not a rule but a mere Memorandum. It is simply an explanation issued by the Senior Assistant Secretary of the Ministry without any directive of the competent higher authority. So it can be easily presumed that such a letter cannot stand as final decision because this was not issued on the basis of the Ordinance or Rules of the Government. The seniority Rules have not been violated as the PSC is the appropriate authority to determine the seniority and to recommend for promotion. The Ministry of Labour and Employment is legally bound to issue the promotion order as per the recommendation of the PSC. There being no merit in the application, the case was liable to be rejected.

7. The Administrative Tribunal hearing the parties by its decision dated 12-4-2007 allowed the application declaring the impugned Memos as illegal, arbitrary, without lawful authority and were of no legal effect. The Tribunal also declared that the appellant was entitled to his seniority on the basis of his past service with all

73

Annual Report 2018

“attendant benefits towards promotion from the date of which his juniors” were promoted along with increments, time scale, fixation of pay etc with arrears. Against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Administrative Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 154 of 2007 before the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal by the impugned decision allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Administrative Tribunal md affirmed the impugned orders.

8. Against the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, the appellant preferred Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 172 of 2010 before this Division and leave was granted to consider the following grounds:

“I. For that the learned Administrative Appellate Tribunal committed error of law in deciding the seniority of the petitioner in total disregard to the principle contained in the OMED (R-II) S-59/77-25(500) dated 20th March 1979 in which it is provided that when a ‘surplus public servant’ is absorbed 100% of his previous service would be counted towards the fixation of seniority, calculation of pay, leave and pension.II. For that the condition included in the absorption order dated 9-1-1988 of the petitioner that his previous service would not be counted as he was absorbed in a gazetted post with the scale of Taka 900-2075 in grade-XII. His previous appointment was also in grade-XII with the scale of Tk 900-2075 as shown in Annexure A to the application filed before the Administrative Tribunal.III. For that every case of absorption is required to be settled on its facts and there is no linkage with others and there is provision for relaxation. In such view of the matter, there was no need to include any other officer who would be affected by absorption of a surplus public servant.IV. For that the post held by the petitioner in the Bangladesh Manpower Planning Center and the post in which he was absorbed are both in grade-XII and, as such, there would no justification for the claim that he was absorbed in a higher post.”

9. Mr AM Aminuddin, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant has, in fact, canvassed the grounds on which leave was granted and in support of his contention, he referred the cases of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment vs Shafiuddin Ahmed, 50 DLR (AD) 27 and the Director General, NSI vs Md. Sultan Ahmed, 16 BLD (AD) 76= 1BLC (AD) 71.

10. Mr Ekramul Hoq, learned Deputy Attorney-General, for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal.

11. From the decision of the Administrative Tribunal, it appears that it gave clear finding that the case was not bad for defect of party as the persons who were connected with the passing of the order impugned dated 26-10-2005 were made parties; the Public Service Commission prepared a seniority list on 18-9-1997 counting the seniority of the appellant from the date of his joining the post as Economic Investigator in the scale of Taka 900-2075 at Bangladesh Manpower Planning Center of the Ministry of Labour and Manpower observing the existing rules and issued the list vide Memo No. KKm/Gm.Avi.-4/1 Gm- 47/97/496 dated 18-9-1997 but, afterwards, evading that seniority list took an arbitrary decision recommending to place Abu Tayeb and Md Faridul Islam before the position of the appellant without making “any notice” to the concerned person, that is, the appellant; the other officers, namely, Abul Hossain, Md Rezaul Hoque Chowdhury, Md Ishaq Mia and Md Shamsul Alam who were absorbed in the post of Labour Inspector (General) in the department of Inspection of Factories and Establishments and in the Directorate of Labour respectively were also Economic Investigators of the same department of Bangladesh Manpower Planning Centre and were declared as surplus employees and they were given their seniority from the date of their first appointment and their names appeared in the seniority list prepared by the PSC and on the basis of that seniority list they have already been promoted to the

74

Annual Report 2018

next higher post. So, the appellant was discriminated violating his fundamental right of equality before law as enshrined in article 27 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh ; the appellant joined his parent post as Economic Investigator at the National Pay Scale of Taka 900-2075 and thereafter, being absorbed as surplus employee joined the post of Labour Inspector (General) of the Factories and Establishments in the same scale pay of Taka 900-2075 and that the controversy of gazetted and non-gazetted post as raised by the respondents was resolved by the preparation of the seniority list of the class-II gazetted officers issued by the PSC vide Memo No. evmKKm/Gg.Avi-4/Gm-47/97/4696 dated 18-9-1997 under the signature of the Secretary of the Commission and on the basis of the said seniority list some persons have already been promoted to the post of the Assistant Chief Inspector, therefore, the appellant was entitled to get his seniority by counting his service in the post of Economic Investigator.

12. From the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, it appears that it allowed the appeal on the finding, inter-alia, that the application was bad for defect of parties as the persons, namely, Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam recommended for promotion by the Secretary, PSC who were supposed to be affected by the order to be passed by the Administrative Tribunal were not made parties. In the letter of absorption of the appellant, there being clear condition that his seniority in the service would be counted from the date of his joining the new assignment and not from the date of his joining his parent post since abolished and by accepting the said condition the appellant joined his service and served for a quite longer period making no grievance against the terms of the appointment and then filed the case before the Administrative Tribunal on 2-12-2005 which was obviously a belated manoeuvre possibly “being envious of the promotion of his juniors standing on a different footing” so his case was clearly hit “by the principle of waiver, estoppels and acquiescence.” The Administrative Appellate Tribunal concluded by saying that the authority committed no illegality in passing the impugned orders and accordingly affirmed those orders.

13. This appeal, in fact, can be decided on the Office Memorandum No. ED(R-II)S-59/77-25 (500) dated 20-3-1979 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, read with section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985 and the clarification made by the Ministry of Establishment by its Memo dated 16-6-1996. The relevant clause of the office Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat on 20th March, 1979 reads as follows:

“(1) From one Govt. department to another-A surplus person should be allowed to count his past service in the parent department towards fixation of his seniority, calculation of play, leave and pension and there should be relaxation of educational qualification and age if he is appointed in the absorbing department to an equivalent post or cadre.”

14. In the case of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Establishment (supra), this Division held that the Notifications issued under orders of the President, i.e. in terms of article 55(4) of the Constitution and by the authority competent to frame rules, i.e. by the President under the proviso to article 133 of the Constitution have the precision of rules and are general in nature in their application to promotion to the posts of Joint Secretary and above the Deputy Secretary and they have the force of law. They were no greyish in nature. Similar view has been taken in the case of Director General, NSI (supra). So, the above memorandum has definitely the force of law and the same could not be ignored in fixing the seniority of the appellant over the other Labour Inspector (General) counting his service in the post of Economic Investigator. It is also an

75

Annual Report 2018

admitted fact that in the seniority list prepared by the PSC on 18-9-1997, the appellant’s seniority was counted from his previous post, i.e. Economic Investigator and on the basis of the said seniority list, the other persons, namely, Abul Hossain absorbed in the post of Labour Inspector (General) in the Department of Inspector for Factories and Establishments, Md Rezaul Hoque Chowdhury, Md Ishaque Mia and Md Shamsul Alam absorbed in the Directorate of Labour who were the Economic Investigator of the Department of Manpower Planning Center and were declared surplus were also given seniority from the date of their first service. And the name of all those persons appeared in the said seniority list dated 18-9-1997 and on the basis of the said seniority list, they all have been promoted to the higher posts, i.e. Assistant Chief Inspector and Assistant Directors of Labour, but subsequently, the PSC changed the seniority list by placing Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam before the position of the appellant and recommended their names for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Chief Inspector (General) which was to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Labour Inspector (General) according to the seniority. The PSC took the said decision on the basis of the forwarding of the application for promotion filed by them to the said post by the Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishment through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment straightway without sending the same through the Ministry of Establishment, though as per schedule ‘1’ to the Rules of Business, 1996 the decision of the Ministry of Establishment in respect of the absorption of the surplus employees is final and that before taking any decision the PSC has to take opinion of the Ministry of Establishment. The PSC also recommended the name of Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam for their promotion to the said post on the basis of the said changed seniority list. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal observed that “It is astonishing to note that the Bangladesh Public Service Commission while prepared a seniority list observing the existing rules issued the list vide memo No. KKm/GmAvi4/1 Gm-47/97/4696 dated 18-9-1997 and afterwards evading that seniority list took on arbitrary decision recommending to place Mr Abu Tayeb Khan and Mr Faridul Islam before the position of the petitioner. Once the commission prepared a list observing all formalities and the said list subsequently was challenged without making any noticed to the concerned person.” The Administrative Appellate Tribunal did neither consider these facts nor reversed the above quoted finding of the Tribunal.

15. From the facts as discussed hereinbefore, it is clear that Abul Hossin and others having the same background were absorbed in the post of Labour Inspector like the appellant and got their seniority and promotion in the post of Assistant Chief Inspector with the approval of the PSC and also the authority concerned on the basis of the seniority list dated 18-9-1997. But the appellant was denied to count the service of his earlier post which was of the same scale and pay for promotion to the next post arbitrarily which was clearly discriminatory and thus violative of article 27 of the Constitution and the notification of the Establishment Division of the Cabinet Secretariat, dated 20th March, 1979 and the clarification made by the Ministry of Establishment by its Memo dated 16-6-1996.

16. The Appellate Tribunal was totally wrong in holding that the application was bad for defect of party as Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam recommended for promotion by the Secretary of the PSC were not made parties in the application inasmuch as they were not necessary parties in the application as the propriety of the orders impugned in the application could very well be decided without their presence. In holding the application bad for defect of party the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider that every case of absorption is required to be settled on its facts and there cannot be linkage with others and there is provision for relaxation as well. Therefore, there was no need to include those two persons in the application filed before the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal also failed to consider tha there was no dispute as regards the facts, namely, that the appellant was declared as a surplus employee when the Department of Bangladesh Manpower Training Center was abolished and it officers and staffs were declared surplus and were absorbed under the provisions of the Ordinance 1985. The questions involved in the application were whether the appellant was entitled to

76

Annual Report 2018

count his past service in the post of Economic Investigator in fixing his seniority in the absorbed post of Labour Inspector (General); whether the PSC acted illegally in changing the finalized seniority list of class II officers published by it on 18-9-1997 behind the back of the appellant and that too by passing the Ministry of Establishment and whether the appellant could be said to have been estopped from claiming his seniority counting his service in his previous post of Economic Investigator on the plea that a condition was mentioned in his letter of absorption that his past seniority would not be counted as the post of Economic Investigator was not a Gazetted post. And to decide all these questions, section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985, the office Memorandum vide No. ED(R-11) 9-59/77-25(500) dated 20th March, 1979 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division and the clarification given by the Establishment Ministry dated 16-6-1996 were enough. In the context, it is necessary to state that the Chairman and the Secretary of the PSC were impleaded as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the application filed before the Administrative Tribunal, but they did not file any written statement and thereby failed to justify, their action in changing the finalized seniority list dated 18-9-1997. The Government of the Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary of the concerned Ministry, i.e. the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the Chief Inspector, Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments who were impleaded as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement also failed to justify the action of the PSC in changing the seniority list dated 18-9-1997 placing Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam above the appellant and also recommending their names for promotion to the next higher post by passing the case of the appellant who was ahead of them in the seniority list. The only fact they stated to justify the change of the seniority was that the post of Economic Investigator was not a gazetted post and that was not an equivalent post of Labor Inspector (General), but that stand was absolutely incorrect. Because any such thing has not been stated either in section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985 or in the memorandum of the Establishmen Division of the Cabinet Secretariat dated 20th March, 1979. The only thing that is stated in section 6 of the Ordinance, 1985 is that the seniority of a surplus public servant will be given on the basis of the government circulars issued from time to time and in clause (1) of the Memorandum dated 20-3-1979 it has only been stated that “ ..... . . . . . . . . .if he is appointed in the absorbing department to an equivalent post or cadre.” And there is no denial of the fact that the post of Economic Investigator and the post of Labour Inspector (General) were in the same grade, i.e. grade XII having the same pay scale of taka 900-2075, so it cannot be said that the post of Economic Investigator was not equivalent to the post of Labour Inspector (General) and considering all these facts, the seniority list dated 18-9-1997 was prepared by the PSC in consultation with the Ministry of Establishment. It is also necessary to state that initially it was the Ministry of Labour and Employment which sent the seniority list to the Ministry of Establishment and the PSC and in that list, the name of the appellant was also shown above Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam. In the context, it is pertinent to state that the final seniority list was changed by the PSC at the instance of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Establishment, because he forwarded the applications of Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam for promotion to the next higher post without recommending the name of the appellant. The concerned authorities who changed the finalized seniority list and passed the impugned orders having been made parties and they having contested the application failed to justify their action, there would have been no material difference in defending the impugned orders, had Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam been made parties in the application, so for their absence, they were not at all prejudiced. It appears to us that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of Abu Tayeb Khan and Md Faridul Islam were not at all necessary to decide the questions involved in the case.

17. One of the reasons in dismissing the case of the appellant by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was that his case was hit by the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence as he joined the absorbed post of Labour Inspector (General) accepting the condition in the letter of absorption that his seniority would be counted from the date of joining his present post of Labour Inspector (General) since his previous post of Economic Investigator at the Bangladesh. Manpower Planning Center was not a gazetted post. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal

77

Annual Report 2018

was absolutely wrong in taking the said view inasmuch as, such condition was not mentioned in the body of the absorption letter. This will be clear if we look at the body of the absorption order which reads as under:

cÖÁvcb

ms¯’vcb gš¿Yvj‡qi 19/12/90Bs/26/8/97 evs Zvwi‡Li GgB (Gmwc)-12/89-800 bs Ges kªg I Rbkw³ gš¿Yvj‡qi

20/12/90Bs, 5/9/97 evs Zvwi‡Li kv-6/G-1/90/545 bs Awdm ¯§vi‡Ki †cÖw¶‡Z Aaygvb¯— evsjv‡`k Rbkw³ cwiKíbv †K‡›`ªi

D×Ë B‡KvbwgK Bb‡fw÷‡MUi Rbve †gvt gvngy`yj nK‡K kªg cwi`k©K ( mvaviY) c‡` UvKv 100-65-1550-Bwe-75-2075/-

ms‡kvwaZ bZzb †eZb †¯‹‡j AvZœxKiY Kwiqv AÎ cwi`ßivaxb Dc-cÖkvmb cwi`k©b (mvaviY), KjKviLvbv I cÖwZôvb mg~n ivRDK

wefvM, e¸ov Gi Kvh©vj‡q †cvwós †Ìqv nBj|

GBAv‡`kRb¯^v‡_©RvixKivnBjGesBnvAwej‡¤^Kvh©KixnB‡e|

¯^vt/A¯úó

(Wvt G, wKD, gvndzRyj nK)

cÖavb cwi`k©K (PjwZ `vwqZ¡)

KjKviLvbv I cÖwZôvb mg~n

MYcÖRvZš¿x evsjv‡`k miKvi|

18. The contents in the body of the absorption letter clearly show that the Chief Inspector (current charge) of Factories and Establishment issued the letter of absorption to the appellant pursuant to the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Establishment and the Ministry of Labour and Employment and surely there was no such condition in the Memorandum issued by the Ministries and had there been any such thing in the Memorandum that would have been mentioned or reflected in the body of the absorption letter.

19. The condition that the seniority of the petitioner would be counted from the date of joining the absorbed post of Labour Inspector (General) was mentioned at serial No. 10 under the head “ Abywjwc AeMwZ I cÖ‡qvRbxh eë¯’v

MÖn‡Yi Rb¨ †cÖiY Kiv nBjt-Ó and that condition reads as follows.

1| .....................................................

2| ....................................................

3| ....................................................

4| ....................................................

5| ....................................................

6| ....................................................

7| ....................................................

8| ...................................................

9| ...................................................

10| Rbve †gvt gvngy`yj nK, 58/G, AvwRgcyi miKvix Avevmb, XvKv-1205| Rbkw³ ciKíbv †K‡›`ª Zvnvi PvKzix bb †M‡R‡UW c‡` wQj weavq kªg

cwi`k©K (mvaviY) †M‡R‡UW) c‡` †h w`b, ZvwiL nB‡Z Zvnvi eZ©gvb c‡` †R¨ôZv MY¨ Kiv nB‡e| Zvnvi c~e©M‡Yi PvKzixi bw_, Rxeb BZ¨vwì mË¡i

GB `ß‡i `vwLj Kivi Rb¨ wb‡`©k †Ìqv nBj|Ó

20. So, the condition that the seniority of the appellant would be counted from the date of his joining the absorbed post could in no way be accepted or read as a term of the absorption. Reading the absorption letter as a whole, it prima-facie appears to us that the condition as mentioned at serial No. 10 quoted above was nothing but the fanciful desire of the Inspector of Factories and Establishment having no backing of law. We have looked into the provisions of the Ordinance, 1985, but we could not find anything there to put a condition in the absorption letter as quoted hereinbefore. The learned Deputy Attorney-General also failed to locate

78

Annual Report 2018

any provision of law which authorized the Chief Inspector (current charge), Factories and Establishment to incorporate or add such a condition in the absorption letter. We are further obliged to state that the condition that the seniority of the appellant would be counted from the date of his joining the absorbed post was totally against the provision of the Ordinance, 1985 and the Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat and the Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Establishment dated 20-3-1979 and 16-6-1996 respectively.

21. The Administrative Appellate Tribunal also failed to consider that there could not be estoppel, waiver and acquiescence against the law. When the law, namely, the Ordinance, 1985 did not authorize the Inspector Factories and Establishments to add a condition that his seniority would be counted from the date of joining the absorbed post on plea that his previous post was not a gazetted post, he had no authority to add such a condition at the last of the letter of absorption under head ÒAbywjwc AeMwZ I cÖ‡qvRbxq e¨e¯’v MÖn‡Yi Rb¨ †cÖiY Kiv nBj|Ó

So, joining in the post of Labour Inspector (General) by the appellant with the endorsement in the absorption letter as quoted hereinbefore, in no way, can be construed as estoppel, waiver, and acquiescence and such plea could not be taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deny the right of the appellant to count his past service.

22. Therefore, the Administrative Appellate Tribunal was absolutely wrong in taking the above quoted condition mentioned in the absorption letter as estoppel, waiver and acquiescence.

23. For argument’s sake, if it is conceded that the appellant joined his absorbed post accepting the above quoted condition of absorption, the same being contrary to the provisions of the Ordinance, 1985, his right of seniority as per the Ordinance and the notifications as discussed above could not be taken way.

24. From the decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal, it further appears that it accused the appellant of filing the case before the Administrative Tribunal at a belated stage after serving “for quite a long period” ignoring his case that after joining the absorbed post, he applied to the authority for his seniority in the service from the date of his joining the previous post of Economic Investigator and admittedly his seniority was fixed counting his service in the post of Economic Investigator and accordingly, the final seniority list was published by the PSC on 18-9-1997 and that the cause of action to file the application before the Tribunal arose when the said finalized seniority list was changed by the PSC behind his back and the persons who were below him in the seniority list were promoted to the next higher post ignoring his claim of promotion.

For the discussions made hereinbefore, we are constrained to hold that the Administrative Appellate Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the appeal, setting aside those of the Administrative Tribunal and we find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is allowed. The decision of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal is set aside and those of the Administrative Tribunal are restored.

Ed.

Source: The Dhaka Law Reports (August, 2017)

79

Annual Report 2018

JUDGMENT JUNE

Appellate Division

(Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2008) With CP Nos. 1930-31 of 2008with CP Nos. 1083-1089 of 2009

Surendra Kumar Sinha CJNazmun Ara Sultana JMd Imman Ali JHasan Foez Siddique JMirza Hussain Haider J Bangladesh Biman Airlines Limited...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appellant vs(In Ca No. 117 of 2008)Captain Mir Mazharul Huq and others ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents

JudgmentApril 11th, 2017

Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ: This appeal by leave and the petitions are disposed of analogously since the law point involved in these matters are identical. For avoiding repetition the facts in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1990 out of which the appeal has arisen are narrated below shortly.

2. Captain Mir Mazharul Huq was one of the senior most pilots of the Bangladesh Biman (the Biman). He developed a problem in his eyesight. In spite of treatment as his vision had not improved, there was recommendation for grounding him and the said fact was brought to the notice of the Biman authority and thereupon he was given compulsory retirement for public interest under regulation 11A(2) of the Regulations, 1979 on the ground that he has completed 25 years in service. He challenged the said action of the Biman.

3. The High Court Division discharged the rule observing that there was no illegality in exercising the power of compulsory retirement as per provisions in regulation 11A(2) of the Regulations, 1979. As against the judgment of the High Court Division, leave was granted by this court at his instance to consider the contention that “Bangladesh Biman Corporation had no power under the law to retire the appellant compulsorily from service or completion of 25 (twenty five) years of service, as the appellant being a public servant within the meaning of the definition of “public servant” as given in the Public Servant (Retirement) Act, 1974 (Act No.XII of 1974), and section 3 of the said Act having provided that the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other laws or rules in force the appellant could only be retired before the age of superannuation by the Government in exercise of its power under section 9(2) of the said Act. It was also the contention that the power to retire having been conferred on the Government only, the Bangladesh Biman corporation had no authority under the law to retire the appellant from service under Regulation 11A(2) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1979 and in that view of the matter the High Court Division was wrong in discharging the Rule. It was also the contention of the appellant that the provisions of Regulation 11A(2) of the said Regulations being contrary to the provisions of the said Act No. XII of 1974, the said Regulations and its provision ultra vires the provision of Act No. XII of 1974”.

4. While disposing of the Appeal this court observed that undisputably the order of retirement was passed by the Biman itself under regulation 11A(2) of the Regulations; that the order of retirement so passed is not sustainable in views of the decisions of this court in CP No. 676 of 1996 and Bangladesh Biman Corporation vs

80

Annual Report 2018

Md Zainul Abedin, 20 BLD (AD) 230 and as per agreement between the Bangladesh Biman Corporation and the Bangladesh Airline Pilots Association in 1986, the Biman was required to act as per Clause 12.1.1 of Article 12 of the said agreement since there was no equivalent post to offer to the appellant in case of grounding him and ought not to have resorted to the provision of Regulation 11A (2) of the Regulations.

5. Mr Mahbubey Alam, leared counsel appearing for Biman argued that this court has committed error of law apparent on the face of record in holding that the government is the authority to give compulsory retirement of Captain Mir Mazharul Huq relying upon the case reported in Biman Corporation vs Md Zainul Abedin 20 BLD (AD) 230 overlooking that the views taken in the case has been overruled by this court in Civil Apparel Nos. 37-38 of 1990. He further argues that this court has committed further error in holding that Biman has no authority to give compulsory retirement of Captain Mir Mazharul Huq under regulation 11A(2) of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Service) Regulation 1979 and that section 9(2) of the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 was applicable to him in failing to consider that in presence of specific law covering the field, the Act of 1974 has no manner of application to him.

6. If the terms and conditions of an employee of Biman is regulated by the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985, then the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 shall be applicable to him. If the Rules of 1985 not applicable on him then the Public Servants (Retirement) Act, 1974 will not be applicable, is pure and simple. There is no doubt about it. Now the question is whether the Rules of 1985 is applicable to him. The simple answer is manifestly in negative.

7. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 30 of the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Ordinance, 1977 and in supersession of all rules, regulations made on the subject, Board of Directors of the Corporation with previous sanction of the government made the Bangladesh Bima Corporation Employee (service) Regulation, 1979. It is said, the Regulations shall apply to all employees of the Corporation on contract, service and apprentices to such extent as may be specified in the apprenticeship contract. Section 30 of the Ordinance empowers the Board to promulgate the Regulations for all matters for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Ordinance.

8. Though section 27 of the Ordinance states that all officers and employees of the Corporation be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Penal Code while acting the pursuance of the Ordinance or Regulations made thereunder, Section 21 does not define public servants, but describes them only by enumeration, which itself is merely illustrative and by no means exhaustive. Persons designated ‘the public servants’ form a class by themselves as requiring special protection of the law. Persons who are the embodiment of law and authority naturally possess some privileges, and they are visited the corresponding penalties if they deviate from the course prescribed to them by their duty. Section 21 may generally signify any person duly appointed and invested with authority to administer any part of the public duty imposed by law, whether it be judicial, ministerial or mixed.

9. Public sevants known to the law are either government or statutory or those mentioned in the section. Some local or special laws have declared certain functionaries as public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code. A person may be declared to be public servant by a statute but such declaration would not necessarily make him a public servant within the meaning of section 21, though he will be a public servant for other purposes in accordance with the provisions of the statute. A public servant need not necessarily be appointed by the government. This is obvious from the explanation and the illustrations in which a Municipal Commissioner is declared to be a public servant, though he is elected by the suffrage of his constituency subject only to the approval of the government (Explanation-1).

81

Annual Report 2018

10. The term ‘regulations’ has been of much use recently to denote ordinances having force of law made by subordinate authority under delegated powers. ( Lloyd vs Wallach (1915) 20CLR 229). Regulations framed under an Act or Ordinance are of very great importance. Such regulations are framed for the successful operation of the parent law. Without proper regulation, a statute will often be worse than useless. (Chief Inspector of Mines vs KC Thaper AIR 1961 SC 838). When an Act/Ordinance enables an authority to make regulations, a regulation which is validly made is intra vires of the regulation making authority should be regarded as though it were itself an enactment. (Wicks vs Director of public prosecutions (1947) 1 All ER 205; (1947) AC 362) where the legislature enacts that all orders and regulations made under the section shall have the force of law, it means only that such order and regulations shall have an obligatory character analogous to that of the law. (Riddell vs Reid (1942) 2 All ER 161).

11. The Regulation of 1979 was promulgated for similar purpose as the one promulgated in respect of government sevants. In respect of the public sevants, in presence of specific law covering the field, there is no scope for the application of Act of 1974 in respect of an officer of Biman. Regulation 5 empowers the Corporation to give compulsory retirement of any employee after completion of 25 years if the Corporation feels in its interest to retire him. Similarly, Regulation 11A(2) of the Regulations empowers the Corporation to give compulsory retirement to an employee after completion of 25 years of service if the Corporation considers it expedient to do so. Words in regulation 5 are in parimateria with those in section 4 of Act of 1974. Section 9 has given an option to a public servant or the government to opt or give retirement after completion of 25 years of service in the public interest. Before amendment of section 9 of Act of 1974 by Ordinance No. 1 of 1983 with retrospective effect from 28-7-1981, section 9(2) was declared violative to articles 27 and 29 of the constitution in Dr Nurul Islam vs Bangladesh, 33 DLR (AD) 2001. After the judgment sub-section (2) was substituted as under:

“ The government may, if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do, retire from service from a public servant at any time after he has completed 25 years of service without assigning any reason”.

“ The Corporation may, if it considers expedient so to do, retire from service an employee at any time after he has completed twenty-five years service without assigning any reason”.

12. By this substitution the words “if it considers necessary in the public interest so to do” have been inserted to meet the inconsistency as observed by this court in Dr. Nurul Islam (ibid). Similarly in regulation 11A(2) verbatim language has been used as in section 9 which is reproduced below:-

13. In the sub-section (2) the words “if it considers expedient so to do” have been used. Therefore, there is no gainsaying that this sub-section (2) is couched in similar language of section 9(2) of Act of 1974. It is now settled that for public interest either a public servant or an employee of Biman may be given compulsory retirement after completion of 25 years for public interest. Admittedly Captain Mir Mazharul Huq has been suffering from vision and he being a senior most officer who could not be accommodated in any other similar post, had been given compulsory retirement by the authority in the public interest after completion of 25 years. This court declared his compulsory retirement without lawful authority in Appeal No. 123 of 2001 following the decision of Biman Corporation Limited vs Md Zainul Abedin, (ibid) ignoring the previous decision of this court in Bangladesh Biman vs Yousuf Haroon, 10 BLT (AD) 22= 54 DLR (AD) 161. By this decision this court overruled the views taken in Md Zainul Abedin (Supra) (20 BLD (AD)230).

14. In Md Zainul Abedin (Supra), this court considered section 9(2) Act of 1974 and regulation 11A(2) and observed that there is clear conflict between “these two provisions so far as it relates to retiring authority is concerned.” In the former it is the government while in the latter it is the Corporation and then it concluded

82

Annual Report 2018

its opinion holding that the writ petitioner being public servant the government has power to retire him under section 9(2). This court totally ignored in that case that though an officer of Biman is a public servant, he is not a public servant of the Republic within the meaning of section 2(d) of Act, 1974, inasmuch as, the expression ‘public servant’ has been explained but it cannot be taken as a definition of public servant and the definition is not exhaustive. It is in inclusive nature and does not define the words. It says a class categories of public sevants, a person serving in any Corporation may come within the term ‘public sevant’. The number of persons claiming the right and the nature of right itself will be the criteria on which conclusion may be arrived. In presence of special law covering the field of service regulation this inclusive explanation will not prevail over the regulation. Besides Bangladesh Biman Corporation, there are other corporations which do not promulgate the terms and conditions of service and in those Corporations this definition will be applicable.

15. The views taken by this court in that case is that in presence of conflict between sections 9(2) and regulation 11A(2), the Act will prevail is not a correct view, inasmuch as, in the definition of ‘law’ defined in article 152, a ‘Regulation’ and an ‘Act of Parliament’, are taken at par. So, the Regulations promulgated by the Board with prior approval of the government covering the specific field shall prevail over the Act of 1973. If any Rules are framed by the authority in exercise of powers under section 11 of Act of 1974 in respect of the employees or officers, the portion of the Rules to the extent of the inconsistency shall be void but section 9(2) shall not prevail over the regulation 11A(2).

16. This court in Yousuf Haroon (Supra) has righty held that this regulation 11A(2) was added on 5-2-1984 after the decision in Dr. Nurul Islam (supra). It further held that since there is principle or guidelines for retiring an employee after 25 years of service, it cannot be said that regulation 11A(2) does not give any guideline or that there is scope for arbitrary exercise of power by the Corporation. It further held that an employee of Biman can be given compulsory retirement by the Corporation in exercise of powers under rule 5 of Bangladesh Biman Corporation Employees (Pension and Gratuity) Rules, 1988 as well as regulation 11A(2).

The authority before making the order of compulsory retirement was satisfied that for the interest of Corporation he was given compulsory retirement and that there was nothing on record to show that the order of compulsory retirement was made arbitrarily or malafide. Under the unamended provision, there was scope for arbitrary exercise of discretion from among persons similarly situated and holding similar job, but under the present provision there is no scope to exercise arbitrary power. We fully endorse to the views taken in Yousuf Haroon (Supra).

17. This court has overlooked the earlier decision in the appeal. In view of the above, we find substance in the submission of the learned counsel that there is error apparent in the face of the judgment. If the previous judgment is allowed to stand, that would lead to failure of justice. There is error which is apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The error is so patent and glaring that it can be located without any elaborate argument and without any scope for any controversy with regard to such error, which at a glance stares at the face. An overruled point of law cannot be ignored by this court and when a proposition of law has been settled, which is binding on all courts and though it is not binding on this court, it can overrule the said decision. A decision of a court overlooking a decision, or if it is contrary to law, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record justifying its revies. It is immaterial whether such error occurred by reason of lawyer’s mistake or oversight on the part of the court (in Jamna vs Lai, AIR 1950 FC 131).

The appeal is allowed without order as to cost and the leave petitions are disposed of. The judgment in the appeal shall govern the leave petitions.

Ed.

Source: The Dhaka Law Reports (January, 2018 )

83

Annual Report 2018

JUDGMENT JULY

(Special Original Jurisdiction)Writ Petition Nos. 9763 of 2011High Court DivisionMamnoon Rahman JShahidul Karim JDr Sarkar Mahbub Ahmed Shamim ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PetitionervsGovernment of Bangladesh & others ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents

Judgment

June 18th, 2015

Shahidul Karim J: In an application under Article 102 of the constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, this Rule is issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the order of suspension dated 13-11-2010 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No. 8 and the notice dated 12-11-2011 (Annexure-C) should not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and are of no legal effect and why a declaration should not be made to the effect that the petitioner was and continue to be in service with all attended benefits of pay and other service benefits and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2. The factual background leading to the issuance of the Rule is that upon obtaining MBBS degree from Chittagong University and thereafter, on completion of post-graduation in Dermatology, on 1-6-2003, the petitioner joined as a Medical Officer in the Department of Dermatology and Venerealogy of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (in brief, the BSMMU). While serving as such with full satisfaction of the authority concerned, the petitioner was placed under suspension on certain allegations vide order dated 13-11-2010 under section 13(2) of the Efficiency and Disciplinary Ordinance (`ÿZv I k„OLjv Aa¨v‡`k) (in short, the Ordinance). Subsequently, by office order dated 8-10-2011, an inquiry committee was formed wherein the respondent No.5 was made a member in violation of the relevant provision of the Ordinance, who is one of the complainant makers against the petitioner. Later, on 12-11-2011, charge was framed against the petitioner on certain allegations and he was also asked to submit his reply within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his reply on 19-11-2011 denying all the allegations. In spite of that, the respondents did not start any formal departmental case nor has any inquiry started against the petitioner since long though he was put under suspension long one year back from the date of framing charge. As per the proviso to section 13(3) of the Ordinance, a disciplinary proceeding must be concluded within the next 3(three) months from its initiation. But, with malafide intention, the respondents kept the matter of the petitioner pending for a long period without offering any explanations.

The attitude as well as the conduct of the respondents in starting the proceeding and to carry out the inquiry process unerringly signifies their malafide intention which has vitiated the entire actions ranging from the suspension order till the framing of charge.

3. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid conduct of the respondents, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained the instant Rule.

4. The Rule is being contested by the respondent Nos. 2-10 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. Their case, in short, is that on certain specific allegations the petitioner was put under suspension on 13-11-2010 and thereafter, a primary report committee was formed on the same date to carry out preliminary inquiry.

84

Annual Report 2018

Subsequently, upon receiving report of the primary report committee, an enquiry committee was constituted in line with the recommendation of the said committee on 3-10-2011 as per the relevant provision of the Ordinance. Thereupon, the enquiry committee issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner asking him to show cause within next 7 (seven) days in accordance with the provision of section 9(1) of the Ordinance. Later, having failed to get any reply, a second charge sheet was again issued on 12-11-2011 by the inquiry committee. The enquiry committee, thereupon, conducted an inquiry in accordance with the relevant procedure upon giving the petitioner ample opportunity to defend him and, in fact, the petitioner also participated in the inquiry process on a number of occasions. Moreover, during the inquiry period it was further revealed that since the suspension order, the petitioner did not present himself for work in the relevant department as well as he went abroad without obtaining any prior permission from the concerned authority. Thereafter, the inquiry committee issued a letter dated 15-10-2014 to the petitioner asking him to explain his position. But he did not pay any heed to it, rather he delayed the matter in the name of providing materials. Eventually, the enquiry committee, having concluded the inquiry in accordance with the relevant procedure, submitted its report recommending dismissal of the petitioner upon finding him guilty on all the allegations brought against him. No illegality or irregularity has been committed or done in initiating as well as in conducting the inquiry process and since the inquiry committee has already submitted its report and as there is alternative forum for the petitioner to get redress against it in the form of appeal, the present writ petition has become infructuous as well as incompetent and therefore, it is liable to be discharged.

5. Ms Nahid Mahtab along with Mr Sayem Mohammad Murad, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, upon placing the writ petition including the suspension order as well as the impugned notice, submits strenuously that the impugned order dated 13-11-2010, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension on certain allegations under section 13(2) of the Ordinance, is ex-facie illegal and unlawful as no charge was framed against him nor any inquiry committee was formed within the next 1(one) year from the date of putting him under suspension. Having drawn our attention to the provision of section 13(3) of the Ordinance she also submits that in the absence of any extraordinary circumstance the duration of the period of suspension must not exceed more than 3(three) months and no person should be kept under suspension beyond that period, yet the petitioner was kept under suspension for an indefinite period without initiating any formal proceeding or framing any charge. Even, no cause or explanation was given or shown for such an inordinate delay which speaks nothing but the malafide intention of the respondents concerned. She further submits that the respondents with malafide intention framed charge against the petitioner on 12-11-2011 i.e. after 1(one) year from the date of putting him under suspension on 13-11-2010. She also submits that even the inquiry committee was constituted after a long lapse of time wherein the person at whose instance the petitioner was placed under suspension was also made a member in clear violation of the specific provision of section8 (Ka)2 of the Ordinance. Lastly, she submits that even then, during inquiry no evidence was found as well as taken in support of the charge leveled against the petitioner following which the inquiry committee has also opined that the charges brought against petitioner were not proved. In support of her submissions the learned Advocate placed reliance on the decision of the case of Md Zulfiker Mahmud vs the National University, Gazipur reported in 15 BLT 51 = 60 DLR 40.

6. As against these, Mr Tanjib-ul-Alam with Mr Mohammad Hasan Habib, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2-10, at the outset, referring to Annexure-18 submits that since the inquiry committee formed against the petitioner has already submitted its report recommending his dismissal from service, the instant writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the same has been filed challenging only the suspension order of the petitioner which the authority concerned is competent to draw under the relevant Ordinance. He further submits that the provision of section 13(3) of the Ordinance is not mandatory in nature

85

Annual Report 2018

rather directory since no consequence has been attached thereto in case of any non-compliance of the same. He also submits that no illegality has been committed by the concerned authority of the university in placing the petitioner under suspension and the inquiry committee was formed in accordance with the terms of the relevant provision of the Ordinance wherein by virtue of the post the chairman of the Dermatology and Venerealogy Department was made a member who, in fact, did nothing against the petitioner, rather as a departmental head he brought some indisciplinary activities of the petitioner to the notice of the authority. Furthermore, the petitioner has alternative forum to seek redress in the form of appeal against any adverse decision taken in the departmental proceedings, but despite that, he filed the instant writ petition which is not tenable in law being incompetent, the learned Advocate finally added.

7. In reply to the above submission of Mr Tanjib-ul-Alam, his counterpart Ms. Nahid Mahtab also submits that the so-called inquiry committee found the petitioner guilty not for the charges upon which he was placed under suspension, but for some other allegations regarding which he was not formally charged with and therefore, the same has got no bearing on the fate of the instant case.

8. We have heard the submissions and the counter submissions of the learned Advocates of the contesting parties, perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition, affidavit-in-reply including the documents annexed thereto and also considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the relevant provisions of law extensively.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner is a physician by profession and while he was serving as a Medical Officer at the department of Dermatology and Venerealogy of the BSMMU, the concerned authority in the university has placed him under suspension on certain allegations on 13-11-2010 under section 13(2) of the Ordinance. It is also the admitted position that the service of all teachers/officers/ employees of the university is governed by the aforesaid Ordinance. It is the definite contention of the petitioner that the relevant authority in the university in clear violation of the specific provision of section 13(3) of the Ordinance has put him under suspension for an indefinite period and also constituted an inquiry committee after a long interval from the date of his suspension wherein respondent No. 5 was illegally made a member, who is one of the complainants against the petitioner, in contravention of the proviso to section 8(2) of the Ordinance. It has further been contended that with malafide intention the inquiry process has intentionally been dragging for years together by the respondents whereupon the fate of the petitioner has been kept hanging in the balance in complete defiance of the spirit and intent of the Ordinance as well as the rule of natural justice.

10. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that no illegality has been done in putting the petitioner under suspension rather in compliance with all the legal formalities as prescribed by the Ordinance he was placed under suspension as well as a departmental proceeding was started after constituting an inquiry committee which, in fact, has conducted the inquiry in terms of the Ordinance.

11. With a view to arrive at a correct decision regarding the controversy in issue, it would be profitable to have a close look at the relevant provisions of the Ordinance wherein the detailed procedure of the inquiry process and the provisions relating to suspension as well as formation of inquiry committee have been incorporated.

12. We may start with the formation of the inquiry committee which has been dealt with in section 8(2) of the Ordinance which reads as under:-

ÒAwf‡hvM Z`šÍt

K) wkÿK/Kg©KZ©vM‡Yi †ÿ‡Î-GB Aa¨v‡`‡ki 5 avivq ewY©Z kvw¯Íi KviY mg~‡ni †h‡Kv‡bv GK ev GKvwaK Kvi‡Y Awfhy³ †Kv‡bv wkÿK A_ev

86

Annual Report 2018

Kg©KZ©viweiæ‡×AvbxZAwf‡hvMZ`‡šÍiRb¨wb‡¤œv³c×wZAej¤^bKwi‡ZnB‡et

(1)Awfhy³ wkÿK/Kg©KZ©vi weiæ‡× AvbxZ Awf‡hvM cÖgv‡Yi Rb¨ AvbyôvwbK Z`‡šÍi cÖ‡qvRb Av‡Q wK-bv, †mB e¨vcv‡i wm×všÍ MÖn‡Yi mnvqK

wnmv‡e fvBm-P¨v‡Ýji h_vh_ g‡b Kwi‡j, AvbxZ Awf‡hvM cixÿv Kwiqv wi‡cvU© †ck Kwievi Rb¨ GK ev GKvwaK wkÿK A_ev/ Ges Kg©KZ©v

mgš^‡qGKwUcÖv_wgKwi‡cvU©KwgwUMVbKwi‡Zcvwi‡eb|

(2) fvBm-P¨v‡Ýji hw` DwjøwLZ cÖv_wgK wi‡cvU© KwgwUi wi‡cv‡U©i wfwË‡Z A_ev wb‡RB wm×všÍ MÖnY K‡ib †h, Awfhy³ e¨w³i weiæ‡× AvbxZ

Awf‡hvMZ`‡šÍicÖ‡qvRb,†mB†ÿ‡ÎwelqwUZ`šÍKwiqvgšÍe¨Imycvwikm¤^wjZwi‡cvU©wmwÛ‡KUmfvq†ckKwieviRb¨fvBm-P¨v‡Ýjiwb¤œiƒc

Z`šÍKwgwUMVbKwi‡ebt

K. GKRb †cÖv-fvBm P¨v‡Ýji- mfvcwZ

L. (1) mswkøó Abyl‡`i Wxb

(hw` Awfhy³ e¨w³ wkÿK nb)

A_ev - m`m¨

L(2) wek¦we`¨vjq †h‡Kv‡bv GKRb wkÿK/Kg©KZ©v - m`m¨ M. 2 Rb wmwÛ‡KU m`m¨

(hvnvi g‡a¨ GKRb e¨w³ nB‡eb whwb GB wek¦we`¨vj‡qi PvKzwi‡Z wb‡qvwRZ b‡nb) - m`m¨ N. mswkøó wefvMxq/Awdm

cÖavb - m`m¨ O. †iwRóªvi/Ab¨ GKRb Kg©KZ©v - m`m¨-mwPe

kZ© _v‡K †h, Awfhy³ e¨w³/Awf‡hvMKvix hw` c`vwaKvi e‡j Z`šÍ KwgwUi m`m¨ nb Zvnv nB‡j Zvnvi ¯’‡j Ab¨ GKRb e¨w³‡K m`m¨ wb‡qvM

Kwi‡Z nB‡e|

Z`šÍ KwgwU KZ…©K kvw¯Í Av‡iv‡ci mycvwi‡ki wi‡cv‡U©i cwi‡cÖwÿ‡Z, wmwÛ‡K‡Ui we‡ePbvq h_vh_ Ggb †h †Kv‡bv GK ev GKvwaK kvw¯Í (GK

Aa¨v‡`‡ki AvIZvq) A_ev Av‡`k wmwÛ‡KU cÖ`vb Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e|Ó

13. From the aforesaid provision it is thus evident that the vice-chancellor of the university will constitute an enquiry committee comprising of 7 members who must be the office bearer of different hierarchy and if anyone of them happens to be an accused/complainant in that case he would be replaced by another person. The replacement clause of the member, in our view, was inserted in order to get a fair inquiry followed by a neutral report as well as to avoid any sort of controversy. But in the instant case we find with dismay that the above condition has not at all been complied with rather in complete disregard to the same the enquiry committee was formed.

14. From a close perusal of the materials on record it appears manifestly that the respondent No.5 is the chairman of the Dermatology and Venerealogy Department, wherein the petitioner has been working as a medical office, who in fact has brought the allegations against the petitioner of his being absent from duty on 23rd and 24th October, 2010. Therefore, as per the proviso to section 8(2), he is not competent to be a member of the enquiry committee; rather he is liable to be replaced by another person. But the aforesaid provision has not at all been maintained. In such a backdrop, it can be said without any hesitation that the formation of the enquiry committee against the petitioner was not made in compliance with the relevant provision of the Ordinance; rather it was a defective one. We like to notice here further that as per annexure-10, during the continuation of the enquiry process, respondent No.5 made some new allegations against the petitioner of his being unauthorized absent from duty and also of making foreign tour without obtaining prior approval which were considered actively by the committee and in fact, as it appears, banking on such allegations he was found guilty of the charge. It is thus apparent that respondent No. 5 was an interested person in the proceeding itself and his inclusion in the enquiry committee has certainly vitiated the entire process being in violation of the clear mandate of the proviso to section 8(2) of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the petitioner was allegedly found guilty not for the allegation with which he was charged but for some other allegations of misconduct for which he was not arraigned with.

15. Now, let us turn our attention to another aspect of the matter which relates to the duration of the suspension order of the petitioner as well as of delay that has occurred in starting the inquiry process by framing formal

87

Annual Report 2018

charge and also of the period consumed in taking the same to finality.

16. Regarding the period of suspension section 13(3) of the Ordinance provides as follows:

Ò(3)mvgwqKeiLv‡¯ÍimgqKvjmvaviYfv‡e3(wZb)gv‡miD‡aŸ©nB‡ebv|Z‡ewe‡klcwiw¯’wZ‡ZDwjøwLZmg‡qig‡a¨wePviKvh©m¤úbœKiv

bv †M‡j Zvnvi we¯ÍvwiZ KviY Z`šÍ wi‡cv‡U© D‡jøL Kwi‡Z nB‡e|Ó

17. From the language used in the above section it is clear that in general the period of suspension should not go beyond 3(three) months within which the enquiry has to be completed. But, due to special circumstances, if the enquiry could not be completed within the aforesaid period of 3 months in that event the cause of delay has to be explained in details in the concerned report. But, for that matter, there remains no room to construe that the period of suspension as well as the duration of the enquiry process can be prolonged for an indefinite period even for years together as has been done in the present case. Materials on record go to show that the petitioner was suspended from service on 13-11-2010 and thereafter, upon an interval of about almost 1(one) year, charge was framed against him on 2-11-2011 and 12-11-2011 to which he replied on 19-11-2011. It reveals emphatically from annexure-3 & 19 that thereupon the committee first met on 11-4-2012 and lastly on 15-1-2015 and in between the aforesaid two dates the committee has also sat on a number of occasions i.e. on 11-4-2012, 4-8-2012, 5-12-2012, 20-3-2013, 22-9-2014, 21-10-2014, 8-1-2015 and 15-1-2015.

We failed to comprehend any plausible ground behind such an illogical and inordinate delay in completing the enquiry process which relates only to two issues i.e. unauthorized absence from duty and referring an outdoor patient to another clinic for treatment. The enquiry committee of course has opined in the report that the delay was caused for the purpose of carrying out a detailed and proper enquiry which, in our view, is nothing but a cock and bull story as a person of normal prudence will be able to understand that the delay occurred in the instant case in completing the enquiry process on such a trifling issue is not only unreasonable and extraordinary, but at the same time it was ill-motivated. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the entire proceeding staring from the suspension order till framing of charge as well as making delay in completing the enquiry process has been done with some ulterior motive and malafide intention in order to humiliate and harass him. The aforesaid irrational conduct of the respondents concerned lead us to believe that they have acted with malafide intention in taking action against the petitioner by way of putting him under suspension as well as by framing charge on the recommendation of the inquiry committee wherein one of the complaints was illegally made against a member and that too, almost after one year of making the suspension order in complete disregard to the relevant provisions of the Ordinance and therefore, the said actions are liable to be scrapped being illegal and unlawful.

18. In this context we may profitably refer to the 15 BLT case wherein a teacher of the National University was placed under suspension on 10-6-2004 under regulation 10(1) of National University Employees (Discipline and Appeal) statute followed by a show cause notice issued upon him on 21-3-2005. But no departmental proceeding was started against him within the period prescribed in the above regulation. In such a backdrop, it has been observed as follows:

“ In the instant case we find that the petitioner was put under suspension on 10-6-2004 (Annexure-’A’) without giving him chance to go on leave as provided under Regulation No. 10 and a show cause notice was issued on 21-3-2005 (Annexcure- ‘B’) but no proceeding has yet been drawn up. It appears that the petitioner was suspended about 10 months before issuing show cause notice to him. Needless to say that the Authority deserves the right of suspending the petitioner subject to a condition that suspension must be related to a proceeding which has already been drawn or is about to be drawn soon after placing the employee under suspension. Regulation 10 presupposes that the authority confidently formed an opinion that the delinquent

88

Annual Report 2018

was likely to be inflicted with a major punishment. If the situation was so emergent why the authority slept over about 10 months without drawing up proceeding against the petitioner? It is evident that the authority neither stared proceeding nor framed any charge within 10 months from the date of suspending the petitioner This careless attitude of the respondents as shown to the petitioner tends us to hold that the respondents enjoyed pleasure in keeping the fate of the petitioner hanging in the balance but law does not permit them to do so.”

19. In the above case in para 15 it has further been held as under:

“It appears that no charge was framed against the petitioner nor any enquiry officer was appointed by the authority within the period of about 10 months from the date of putting him under suspension and, as such, issuance of show cause notice (Annexure-B) at such belated stage renders it to be a concerted device of harassment instead of starting a proceeding.”

20. In the case of Anwarul Huq khan vs Government of Bangladesh, reported in 31 DLR 122 it was held that if the order of suspension is not followed by a proceeding even within 3 months, the order so made is to be treated as without proper application of mind and not sustainable in law. In the instant case the authority put the petitioner under suspension about 22 months ago but failed to start a proceeding till today with a motive intended to prolong mental sufferings of the petitioner. Such conduct of the respondents tantamount to non-application of mind and colorable exercise of power which is clear violation of the principle of natural justice.

21. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the instant writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the matter of suspension as well as the issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner, which has been made subject to challenge in the present case, did not remain standstill rather it has moved to a long way and almost reached to its finality with the submission of the enquiry report and therefore, the proper course for the petitioner would be to seek redress of his grievance before the appropriate appellate forum. But, we are unable to persuade ourselves to go along with the above view for the simple reason that the suspension order, framing of charge and the constitution of the enquiry committee against the petitioner have already been found to be illegal, unlawful and also tainted malafide.

22. Incidentally, we may refer here to some subsequent developments centering round the issue in question which, in fact, came to light through the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the documents filed on behalf of the respondents. It appears from the above materials that the petitioner was primarily indicated with two charges, namely, (1) remaining absent from duty on 23rd and 24th October, 2010 with making note in the roaster `day-off’ and (2) referring of an outdoor patient to another clinic on 3-11-2010. But it is surprising to note that during the course of enquiry another two new allegations, such as, willful abstention from duty since the date of suspension and travelling abroad without obtaining prior permission have also been arraigned against the petitioner and in fact, he was found guilty for the same, though no formal charge was framed for same. Though the aforesaid matter has got no direct bearing on the matter in issue in the instant case yet, we felt tempted to refer to the same in order to show the eagerness as well as the zeal on the part of the enquiry committee, which of course was constituted illegally, to prove the petitioner guilty which in other way go to support the allegation of malafide brought against the respondents. In the light of the aforementioned discussions and the observations made thereunder, we hold that there is merit in the Rule which must succeed.

23. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute.

89

Annual Report 2018

24. The suspension order of the petitioner dated 13-11-2010 and the notice dated 12-11-2011 impugned against in the case are declared to have been issued without lawful authority and are of no legal effect. The petitioner was and continues to be in service with attendant benfits of pay and other service benefits. The respondents are directed to adjust all arrear pay and benefit to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

26. However, there will be no order as to cost.

Communicate the judgment and order at once.Ed.

JUDGMENT AUGUST(Special Original Jurisdiction)Writ Petition Nos. 4554 of 2013High Court Division

M Moazzam Husain JMd Shohrowardi JShah Alam Kabir (Md) ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PetitionervsBoard of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Barisal, represented by its Chairman and others ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents

Md. Shohrowardi J: this Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take appropriate measures for setting a dispute between the petitioner and the Managing Committee in terms of the findings of the Enquiry Repot contained in memo no. Umashiau/Am-bar/13/ Tandanta/22 dated 18-2-2013 submitted by the respondent No. 3 to respondent No.2 (Annexure-L) wherein dismissal of the petitioner was found unlawful and/or such other or further order or orders be passed as to this court may deem fit and proper.

JudgmentOctober 24th, 2017

2. Short facts for disposal of the Rule are that the petitioner was appointed on 30-12-2010 in the vacant post of Headmaster of Mofiz Uddin Girls Pilot High School, Amtali, Barguna by the Managing Committee of the School and he joined in his service as Headmaster on 1-1-2011. After appointment of the petitioner, the term of the Managing Committee had expired and he filed an application on 30-7-2012 to the respondent No. 1, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Barisal, for approval of the Ad-hoc Committee of the school and the respondent No. I by office order dated 29-8-2012 contained in memo No. ewk‡ev/weA/40/2012/2269 approved the Ad-hoc Committee of the said school for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of issuance of the order. Thereafter, the President of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school on 18-9-2012 issued show cause notice upon the petitioner to show cause within 7 (seven) days as to why he should not be suspended from the school for misappropriation of the fund of the school and other allegations. After that, on 24-9-2012 the petitioner had given reply to the show cause notice dated 18-9-2012 denying all the allegations made in the show cause notice and on 30-9-2012 the petitioner also lodged a General Diary being No. 1029 with Amtali

90

Annual Report 2018

Police Station, Barguna against the President of the Ad-hoc Managing committee and teachers of the school and subsequently he also filed an application on 22-11-2012 to the respondent No. I regarding false allegations brought against him by the President of the Ad-hoc Committee of the school. Thereafter the President of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school on 26-11-2012 dismissed the petitioner from services. After that, he filed an application on 5-12- 2012 to the respondent No. I praying for taking step against the illegal action of the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. I by office order dated 6-1-2013(Annexure K) instructed the Upazila Secondary Education Officer, Amtali, Barguna to inquire into the allegations brought against the petitioner by the President of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school and by office order dated 6-1-2013 contained in Memo No. ewk‡ev/weA/ei¸bv-40/2013/3360 (Annexure K1) directed the President of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee to send all relevant documents regarding dismissal of the petitioner to the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, Md Golam Mostafa, Upazila Secondary Education Officer, Amtali, Barguna issued notice to both the parties to appear on 18-2-2013 at 10-00 am in the office of the Headmaster of Mofiz Uddin Girls Pilot High School, Amtali, Barguna for the purpose of holding inquiry and after hearing both parties and completing inquiry submitted his report on 18-2-2013 (Annexure L) to the respondent no. 2, Inspector of the School, Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board, Barisal finding no truth of the allegations brought against the petitioner by the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school.

3. The petitioner further stated that after issuance of the Rule, stay and direction dated 15-5-2013 passed by this Court, he joined in his service on 19-5-2013 and the upazila Secondary Education Office, Amtali, Borguna by letter dated 20-5-2013 (Annexure-S) also informed Md Delwar Hossain, Headmaster (in-charge) that the petitioner joined in his service on 19-5-2013 and instructed him to take necessary steps in accordance with law. After expiry of the term of the Ad-hoc Managing committee of the school, the petitioner as Headmaster filed an application on 2-5-2013 (Annexure) to the respondent No. 2 for giving permission to form an ad-hoc Managing Committee and accordingly the respondent No. 1 by office order dated 4-6-2013 (Annexure T-1) allowed him to form an Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school and after forming the Ad-hoc Managing Committee, the petitioner filed an application on 6-6-2013 (Annexure U) to the respondent No. 2 for approval of the said Committee and accordingly the respondent No. 2 approved the Ad-hoc Managing Committee on 16-6-2013 (Annexure-V) including the name of the petitioner as Member Secretary (ex-officio Headmaster) for a period of 4 (four) months. In the meantime on 11-6-2013 Mesbah Uddin, former President of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee filed Civil Petition For Leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Appellate Division and the Hon’ble Appellate Division by order dated 11-6-2013 was pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 15-5-2013 passed by this court and was further pleased to pass an order directing the parties to maintain statuesque in respect of the office of the Headmaster of the school in question.

4. Thereafter, the Ad-hoc Managing Committee in its meeting held on 18-6-2013 (Annexure W) decided that as per order of the statues que passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Division in Civil petition for leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013, the petitioner will continue in his service as Headmaster of the school and subsequently the said Ad-hoc Managing Committee in its meeting held on 25-9-2013. (Annexure Z-2) unanimously confirmed the service of the petitioner as Headmaster of the school with effect from 1-1-2013. In the meantime, on 26-6-2013 the petitioner as Headmaster along with other teachers of the school obtained MPO. After expiry of the term of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee, the election of the Managing Committee was duly held and the newly elected Managing Committee of the school in its meeting held on 9-11-2013 (Annexure Z-4) unanimously had withdrawn the order of dismissal dated 26-11-2012 holding that the ad-hoc Managing Committee has no authority to dismiss the Headmaster as per Rules and further decided not to contest in the instant Rule against the petitioner.

91

Annual Report 2018

5. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Appellate Division after hearing Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013 by order dated 25-11-2013, disposed of the leave petition and was further pleased to extend the order of statuesque till disposal of the instant Rule. Thereafter, the term of the elected Managing Committee has expired and before expiry of the term of the Managing Committee, the petitioner as Headmaster conducted the election of the Managing Committee and one Ms. Zakia Alice, sister of Mesbah Uddin Ahmed, former President of the Ad-hoc Committee who dismissed the petitioner from service, was elected President of the Managing Committee and the respondent No. 1 on 16-2-2017 again approved the newly elected Managing Committee of the school including the name of the petitioner as Member Secretary (ex-officio Headmaster) and the newly elected Managing Committee headed by Ms Zakia Alico also allowed the petitioner to continue as Headmaster of the school. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the Managing Committee of the school by order dated 27-5-2017 contained in memo No. Gg BDe/Avg-ei/`vwqZ¡/ 2017/90 (Annexure-Q) instructed Md Delwar Hossain, Senior Assistant Teacher to take over the charge of the Headmaster holding that since the order of stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court Division has been declared void by the Hon’ble Appellate Division and the order of statuesque passed by the Appellate Division is in force, the petitioner is not legally entitled to perform the duty as Headmaster of the school and sent the Monthly Payment Order of the teachers and employees of the school excluding the name of the petitioner (Annexure-P). Thereafter on 2-8-2017 the petitioner obtained the Supplementary Rule Nisi in the following term;

Let a supplementary Rule Nisi issue calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the striking out petitioner’s name from salary sheet from the month of April, 2017 (Annexure-P) and letter dated 27-5-2017 (Annexure-Q) issued by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No. 5 despite pendency of the rule in writ Petition No. 4554 of 2013 before the High Court Division and in violation of the order of Appellate Division dated 11-6-2013 and 25-11-2013 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013 shall not be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

6. The respondent No. 4 contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition stating that before dismissing the petitioner from service, a three members inquiry committee headed by Sukumar Chandra Hawlader, guardian member of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee, after examining the records and the witnesses found truth of the allegations brought against him and submitted its report on 20-10-2012 and on the basis of the said inquiry report, the Ad-hoc Managing Committee by order dated 26-11-2012 dismissed the petitioner from service and against the order of dismissal, he filed Title Suit No. 323 of 2012 in the Court of senior Assistant Judge, Amtali, Barguna who by order dated 15-1-2013 dismissed the suit against which the petitioner filed Title Appeal No. 6 of 2013 before the District Judge, Barguna and after filing the appeal, again he filed the instance Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court and subsequently had withdrawn the Title Appeal No. 6 of 2013. The respondent No. 4 also stated that after passing the order of stay and direction dated 15-5-2013, the respondent No. 4 filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013 before the Hon’ble Appellate Division and the Hon’ble Appellate Division by order dated 11-6-2013 was pleased to stay the order of stay and direction dated 15-5-2013 passed by the High Court Division and also directed the parties to maintain statuesque in respect of the office of the Headmaster of the school and at the time of filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner was not in service and in view of the order of statuesque passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Division, Mr Md Delwar Hossain, senior Teacher of the school had already taken over the charge of the Headmaster of the school and after passing the order of statuesque by the Hon’ble Appellate Division, the petitioner joined in his service on 26-6-2013 and the letter dated 20-5-2013 (Annexure-S) has been issued by the Upazilla Secondary Education Officer, Amtali, Barguna at the instance of the petitioner.

92

Annual Report 2018

7. The learned Advocate Mr ABM Siddiqur Rahman Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that inquiry committee headed by Sukumar Chandra Hawlader without hearing the petitioner at the instance of the President of the Ad-hoc Managing Committee had given an ex parte and false report without any basis of materials and the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school had no authority to dismiss any teacher of the school and the dismissal order of the petitioner has not been sent to the Appeal and Arbitration Committee for its examination and approval of the Board as per Rule 12 of the Recognized Non-government Secondary School Teachers (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore) Terms and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1979. He further submits that the inquiry committee formed by the respondent No. 1 found the allegations brought against the petitioner untrue and subsequently the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school after expiry of two years by resolutuin dated 25-9-2013 confirmed the service of the petitioner with effect from 1-10-2013 and thereafter, elected Managing Committee also by the resolution dated 9-11-2013 had withdrawn the order of dismissal dated 26-11-2012 and further decided not to contest in the Rule against the petitioner. He also submits that after issuance of the Rule, stay and direction dated 15-5-2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner joined in his service on 19-5-2013 and thereafter he continued in his service till 27-5-2017, on which date the Managing Committee of the school most illegally, arbitrarily and mala-fide violating the order of statuesque passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Division issued the impugned Annexure P and Q and as such the impugned Annexure P are liable to be declared to have been issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

8. The learned Advocate Mr Lutfor Rahman appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of a report of an inquiry committee duly formed by the Ad-hoc Managing Committee and at the time of dismissal, he was a probationer and the Title Suit No. 323 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as being not maintainable and the Title Appeal No. 6 of 2013 filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal of Title suit No. 323 of 2012 has been withdrawn and thereafter petitioner malafide filed the instant Write Petition. He further submits that since the service of the petitioner was not confirmed by the Managing Committee approval by the Board is not required. He candidly submits that the impugned Annexure P and Q have been issued by the Managing Committee of a Non-Government High School and any decision of the Managing Committee of the Non-Government High School is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

9. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr ABM Sidduqur Rahman Khan who appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr Lutfor Rahman who appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 4 and meticulously examined the Writ Petition and the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4.

10. The issue involved in the instant Rule as to whether the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of a Non-government High School has any authority to impose a penalty upon any teacher of a Non-Government High School violating the ad interim order passed by the Apex Court or not.

11. In this regard, it is required to reproduce the verbatim of the provision of Regulation 12 of The Recognized Non-Government Secondary School Teachers (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore) Terms and Condition of Service Regulation, 1979 which is as under;

12. Regulation 12: Power to impose penalty:- The power to impose penalty upon a teacher under Regulation 11 shall vest in the authority competent to make appointment; provided that the penalties of dismissal or removal from service shall not be imposed unless the proposal for such penalty is examined by the Appeal and Arbitration Committee and approved by the Board.

93

Annual Report 2018

13. In this regard the Ministry of Education published a notification on 12-4-2011 pursuant to Regulation 54 ofÒ†emiKvix wkÿv cÖwZôv‡bi g¨v‡bwRs KwgwU/Mf©wbs ewW msµvšÍ cÖweavbgvjv, 2009Ó restraining the Ad-hoc Managing Committeee not to appoint any teacher or employee of a Non-Government High School and the contents of the notification dated 12-4-2011 is reproduced below:

Ò †emiKvix wkÿv cÖwZôv‡bi g¨v‡bwRs KwgwU/Mf©wbs ewW msµvšÍ cÖweavbgvjv 2009Ó Gi 41(2)(L) 4 Abyhvqx g¨v‡bwRs KwgwU Mfwbs ewW‡K wkÿK-

Kg©Pvixwb‡qv‡Mi†hÿgZv†`qvn‡q‡QZv†KejgvÎwbqwgZg¨v‡bwRsKwgwU/MfwbsewWigva¨‡gm¤úbœKi‡Zn‡e|†Kvbµ‡gBGWnKevwe‡kl

ai‡biKwgwU/Mf©wbsewWigva¨‡gwb‡qvMcÖwµqvm¤úbœKivhv‡ebv|

2|Av‡jvP¨cÖweavbgvjvi54bscÖwewa‡ZewY©ZÿgZve‡jwelqwU¯úóKivnj|Rb¯^v‡_©GAv‡`kRvwiKivnjGesZvAwej‡¤^Kvh©Kin‡e|

¯^vÿwiZt

11-4-2011 (Wt Kvgvj Ave`yj bv‡mi †PŠayix) mwPe

14. On a careful reading of the Regulation 2(a) and 12 of the Recognized Non-government Secondary School Teachers (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore) Terms and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1979 and notification dated 12-4-2011 issued by the government pursuant to Requlation 54 of Ò‡emiKvix wkÿv

cÖwZôv‡bi g¨v‡bwRs KwgwU/Mf©wbs ewW msµvšÍ cÖweavbvvjv, 2009Ó it reveals that an elected Managing Committee of a Non-Government High School is the only appointing authority of any teacher and an Ad-hoc Managing Committee is not competent to appoint any teacher of Non-government High School. As appointing authority, an elected Managing Committee is only legally authorized to impose any penalty upon a teacher under requlation 11 subject to examination of the Appeal and Arbitration Committee and approval by the Board. In the instant case, before dismissing the petitioner from service, the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the school did not send the proposal for dismissal to the Appeal and Arbitration Committee for examination and approval of the Board. An order of dismissal of any teacher of Non-government Hight School by Ad-hoc Managing Committee is without jurisdiction and a nullity.

15. The above view of this Court also gets support from the decision made in the case of Akhil Krishna Chakraborti vs Bharati Rani, reported in 3 CLR (AD) 30, Para 10, 22 DLR (1970) 669, Para 14 made in the case of Abdul Rashid vs Hari Pada Sarkar, 2012 BLT (AD) 239: Zulfikar Mahmud vs National University.

16. In Regulation 12 of the Recognized Non-government Secondary School, (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore) Terms and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1979, the legislature also laid down the procedure of imposing a penalty of dismissal or removal of any teacher of Non-government Hight School Under Regulation 12, before dismissing or removing any teacher of Non-Government High School, an elected Managing Committee is duty bound to send the proposal for dismissal or removal from service to the Appeal and Arbitration Committee for examination and approval of the Board. There is no scope to send the order of dismissal to the Appeal and Arbitration Committee for examination and approval of the Board. Subsequent approval of the order of dismissal or removal of any Teacher of Non-Government High School by the Board is illegal and not sustainable in law.

17. On careful scrutiny of the records it transpires that the petitioner filed representation to respondent No. 1, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Board, Barisal against the allegation brought against him by the Ad-hoc Managing Committee and the respondent No. 1 directed the respondent No. 3, Upazila Secondary Education Officer, Amtali, Barguna, to inquire into the allegations brought against the petitioner by the Ad-hoc Managing Ciommittee of the school and respondent No. 3 after inquiry found the allegations brought against the petitioner untrue and submitted report on 18-2-2013 (Annexure-K) to the respondent No. 2. It also transpires that Ad-hoc Managing committee of the school before dismissing the petitioner although formed

94

Annual Report 2018

an inquiry committee to inquire into the allegations brought against the petitioner, but said inquiry committee without hearing the petitioner submitted an ex parte report against him and on the basis of a biased report, the Ad-hoc Managing committee of the school dismissed the petitioner from service without sending the proposal for dismissal to the Appeal and Arbitration Committee for examination and approval of the Board as required under Regulation 12 of the aforesaid Regulations.

18. On perusal of the records it appears that the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 25-9-2013 (Annexure-Z-2) unanimously confirmed the service of the petitioner as Headmaster of the school and after confirmation of the service of the petitioner, the election of the Managing Committee was held and Mr Md Motiur Rahman was elected as the President of the Managing Committee and the elected Managing Committee in its meeting held on 9-11-2013(Annexure Z-4) had withdrawn the order of dismissal dated 26-11-2012 holding that the Ad hoc Managing Committee is not legally authorized to dismiss the Headmaster of the school and also decided not to contest in the instant Rule against the petitioner, but the respondent No. 4 without any further decision of the Managing Committee at her sweet will contest the Rule and during pendency of the Rule with an ill motive showing disrespect to the authority of this Court and violating the order of statuesque passed by the Hon’ble Appellate Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013 malafide by order dated 27-5-2017 (Annexure Q) directed Md Delwar Hossain, a senior teacher of the said school to take over the charge of the Headmaster.

19. It further transpires that after the dismissal of the petitioner, both the Managing Committee allowed him to discharge his duty as Headmaster of the school and in the meantime, the petitioner and other teachers of the school obtained the MPO from the concerned authority and he performed all function as Headmaster. After expiry of the term of the previous elected Managing Committee of the school, he also conducted the election of the present Managing Committee which has been approved on 16-2- 2017 by the Board including the petitioner as Member Secretary (ex-officio Headmaster) and Zakia Alice, respondent No. 4, as President of the Managing Committee and after due approval of the Managing Committee the respondent No. 4 also allowed the petitioner to discharge his duty as Headmaster till 27-5-2017 but the respondent No. 4 suddenly and surprisingly without any basis mala fide issuing Annexure-Q on 27-5-2017 directed Md Delwar Hossain, Senior teacher of the school to hold the charge of the Headmaster holding that at the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was not in service suppressing the fact that after passing the order of stay and direction dated 15-5-2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner joined in service on 19-5-2013 which is evident from the Annexure S, letter dated 20-5-2013 (Annexure S) issued by the Upazila Secondary Education Officer, Amtali, Barguna.

20. Although the Annexure P and Q have been issued by the Managing Committee of a Non-government High School and the said decision is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, but those Annexure have been issued violating the ad interim order, passed by no less a Court but the Appellate Division during pendency of the instant Rule and as such the same is void ab initio and have no force of law. The above view of this Court lends support from the decision made in the case of MA Bari vs Uttara Sarkari Officers Quarter Kallayan Samily, reported in 55 DLR 289 wherein it has been observed in the following terms:

“While the order of stay was in force the Department of Social Welfare accorded registration in favour of the samity of the writ petitioners. Hence the registration is invalid and a nullity.”

21. It is found that the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the School on the basis of an ex parte and biased report mala fide dismissed the petitioner from service without prior approval of the Board. Mala fide is of two kinds, Malice in law and Malice in fact. Malice-in-fact is an act done with ill will or motive against a person. Malice-

95

Annual Report 2018

in-law is a wrongful act intentionally done to cause injury. In Bromage vs Prosser (1825) IC & P; 673:4 B & C it is opined that “Malice in law means the doing of a wrongful act intentionally without just cause or excuse”. It depends upon knowledge and deliberately done in disregard to the right of others. The concept of Malice-in law and Malice-in fact, has been succinctly expressed by Lord Haldane in Shearer vs Shields (1914) AC 808 page 813-814 in the following language.

“Between “malice-in-fact and malice in- law” there is a broad distinction which is not peculiar to any system of jurisprudence. The person who inflicts a wrong or an injury upon any person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind. He is taken to know the law and can only act within the law. He may be, therefore. be guilty of ‘malice-in-law’ although, so far as the state of his mind was concerned he acted intentionally, and in that sense innocently. Malice-in-fact is a different thing. It means an actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has done the wrongful act.”

22. In the case of SR Venkatareunan vs the Union of India, reported in (1979) 2 SCC 491, their Lordships observed in the following language:

“Malice in its legal sense means malice such as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but without just cause or excuse, or want of reasonable or probable cause.”

“It is a well-accepted principle that a party cannot both approbate and reprobate. He cannot, to use the words of Honyman, J. in Smith vs Baker (1878) LR 8 CP 350 at p. 357 at the same time blow hot and cold. He cannot say at one time that the transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and at another time say it is void for the purpose of securing some further advantage.”

23. It reveals that the before dismissing the petitioner from service, proposal for dismissal of the petitioner was not sent to the Appeal and Arbitration Council for examination and approval of the Board in accordance with Regulation 12 of the Recognized Non-government Secondary School Teachers (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore) Terms and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1979, and the service of the petitioner has been confirmed by the subsequent Ad-hoc Managing Committee with effect from 1-1-2013 and thereafter elected Managing Committee had withdrawn the dismissal order by resolution dated 9-11-2013 (Annexure Z-4). Therefore, there was nothing left for the subsequent Managing Committee to take any action against the petitioner on the same cause of action. After passing the order dated 15-5-2013 by this Court, the petitioner joined in his service on 19-5-2013 and discharged his duty as Headmaster till 17-5-2017 and the respondent No. 4 also allowed the petitioner to continue in his service from 16-2-2017 to 17-5-2017, but for reasons best known to the respondent No. 4 without any reasonable cause maliciously issued Annexure P and Q violating the order passed by the Apex Court. It is a settled principle that any act done in disobedience of the interim order of the Court is a nullity. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that Annexure P and Q are a nullity and no order in the eye of law.

24. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate which is fairly attracted in the case which found eloquent expression in the case of Ambu Nair reported in AIR 1933 PC 167 in the following language:

25. In the Case of Nurul Haque (Md) vs the Government of Bangladesh reported in 51 DLR (AD) 140, Para 6 our Apex Court also endorsed the same view wherein Latifur Rahman, J as his Lordship then was, observed in the following language;

96

Annual Report 2018

“The petitioner having accepted the benefit cannot now term the same as illegal. The High Court Division in exercising Writ jurisdiction rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as it is unconscionable to blow hot and cold in the same breath.”

“Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that “ a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage.”

“It is a fundamental principle of general application that if a person of his own accords, accepts a contract on certain terms and works out the contract, he cannot be allowed to adhere to and abide by some of the terms of the contract which proved advantageous to him and repudiate the other terms of the contract which might be disadvantageous to him. The maxim is qui approbate non-reprobate (one who approbates cannot reprobate). This principle, though originally borrowed from Scots Law, is now firmly embodied in English Common law. According to it, a party to an instrument or transaction cannot take advantage of one part of a document or transaction and reject the rest. That is to say, no party can accept and reject the same instrument or transaction (Per Scrutton, LJ, Verschueren Creameries Ltd. vs Hull & Netherlands Steamship Co.)”

26. The decision of the Indian Supreme Court made in RN Goswami vs Yashpal Dhir reported in AIR 1993 SC 352, speaks out the same principle in a different language:

27. The above view of the Indian Supreme Court has been reiterated in the subsequent case like City Montessori School vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 14 SCC 253, and New Bihar Biri Leaves Co vs The State of Bihar reported in 1981 (1) SCC 537. In New Bihar case it has been held that;

28. On scrutiny of the records, it appears that the respondent No. I approved the Ad-hoc Managing Committee of the Mofiz Uddin Girls Pilot High School by order dated 29-8-2012 (Annexure C) for a period of 6 (six) months and the term of the said committee expired on 29-2-2013 and thereafter on 11-6-2013 Mesbah Uddin, President of the former Ad-hoc Managing Committee filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1325 of 2013 and on the same day obtained the order of stay and status quo from the Hon’ble Appellate Division.

29. While the petitioner was discharging his duty as Headmaster, Zakia Alice, respondent No. 4, was elected President of the Managing Committee of the school and she also allowed the petitioner to discharge his duty as Headmaster from 16-2-2017 to 27-5-2017. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 cannot be allowed to blow hot and blow cold at the same time in disregard to his right to continue as Headmaster of the school unless there is fresh cause of action for dismissal.

30. Since after issuance of the Rule, stay and direction dated 15-5-2013, the petitioner joined in his service on 19-5-2013 as Headmaster of Mofiz Uddin Girls Pilot High School, Amtali, Barguna and discharged his duty till 27-5-2017 and the letter dated 27-5-2017 (Annexure-Q) and striking out the name of the petitioner from the salary sheet from month of April 2017 (Annexure-P) have no force of law, there is nothing left for the respondents to take appropriate measures for settling the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to continue in his service as Headmaster of the school and

97

Annual Report 2018

respondents are hereby directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duty as Headmaster of Mofiz Uddin Girls Pilot High School, Amtali, Barguna.

31. Both the Rules are thus disposed of with observation and direction as above.However, there will be no order as to cost.Ed.

Source: The Dhaka Law Reports (March 2018)

JUDGMENT OCTOBER

(Special Original Jurisdiction)Civil Revision No. 3352 of 2011.

High Court Division

Tariq ul Hakim JMd Farquee (M. Faruque) JGrameenphone Ltd ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioner vsChairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka and others ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents

JudgmentDecember 15th, 2016

Tariq-ul Hakim J : Rules Nisi have been issued calling upon the respondent Nos. 1-3 to how show cause why the judgments dated 12-9-2012 passed by the Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 82 of 2011 (Annexure D) dismissing the Appeal along with 263 similar Appeals affirming the judgment dated 30-3-2011 passed by First Labour Court, Dhaka in BLL case No. 284 of 2008 along with 263 similar cases should not be declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2. All these Rules concern common questions of law and facts and were heard together and are being disposed of by this single judgment.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of these Rules is that the Respondent Nos. 3 in all the Writ Petitions as plaintiff filed separate applications under section 213 of the Labour Act, 2006 (Act No. XLII of 2006) against the petitioner Grameenphone for a direction to treat them as permanent workers and provide them facilities of permanent workers alleging inter alia that the Respondent Nos. 3 were appointed as drivers on 18-2-2007 and since their appointment have been driving the cars of the petitioner company and were provided with ‘Identity Cards’, staff uniforms and were paid salaries, bonus, overtime and other benefits by the petitioner Grameenphone and has thus become permanent workers of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner contested the case by filing written statement denying the material allegations alleged in the plainatiff’s petition contending inter alia that there was no contractual relationship between the petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 3 and the Respondent Nos. 3 were engaged by the Respondent No. 4 to render services for the petitioner Grameenphone on outsourcing basis as employees of the Respondent No. 4 and that the Respondent No.4 was being paid by the petitioner company for the service and that the Respondent No. 4

98

Annual Report 2018

paid the salaries and other benefits to the Respondent Nos. 3 for the services they rendered to the petitioner company and therefore the Respondent Nos. 3 had no locus standi to file the cases against the petitioner Grameenphone in the Labour Court and the said Labour Cases were not maintainable in their present form and manner.

6. The Respondent No. 4 also. contested the said Labour Cases by filing separate written statements contending inter alia that there is no relationship between the Respondent Nos. 3 and the petitioner Grameenphone and that the Respondent No. 4 is engaged in providing workers on outsourcing basis and in the course of their business the Respondent No.4 entered into agreement with the petitioner Grameenphone on the 1st day of April, 1999 for a period of one year which was renewed yearly and lastly on 1-12- 2008 for a period of one year upto 31 - 12-2008 to carry on its business of providing drivers on outsourcing basis and the Respondent No. 4 employed and appointed a number of drivers issued letters of appointment in their favour including the Respondent Nos. 3 and thereafter placed them with the petitioner Grameenphone for discharging the duties as drivers.

7. It is further stated that according to the terms of the said agreement the Respondent No. 4 received remunerations from the petitioner and the Respondent No.4 recruited the Respondent Nos. 3 on temporary basis to render services as drivers for the petitioner Grameenphoone as employees of the Respondent No.4 and that the petioner Grameenphone never appointed the drivers on temporary or permanent basis and never issued any letters of appointment to them or gave them any assurance that they would be absorbed permanently in the employment of the petitioner company Grameenphone and that the impugned judgment and orders of the Court below are liable to be set aside.

8. The Respondent No. 2 First Labour Court after hearing the learned Advocates of the parties and adducing evidence by witnesses and perusing the relevant documents passed the judgment and order dated 30-3-2011 against the petitioner Grameenphone. The petitioner Grameenphone thereafter filed Appeals before the Labour Appellate Court against the said judgment and order of the ‘Labour Court who after hearing the parties dismissed the Appeals vide its judgment dated 12-9-2012.

9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Grameenphone has come to this Court and obtained the present Rules.

10. As against this, the Respondent Nos. 3 has filed Affidavits-in-Opposition stating inter alia that the said respondents were employed by the petitioner and were provided indentity cards and after completing their probation period satisfactorily they have acquired the status of a permanent worker as per the provisions of the Labour Law, 2006.

11. It is further stated that the Respondent Nos. 3 have been working for the petitioner as per their requirement and driving their cars as drivers and that the Respondent No. 4 have no control and supervision in their services and work rendered by the Respondent Nos. 3 and therefore they are the employees of the petitioner Grameenphone and they are entitled to be treated as permanent employees/workers of the petitioner and get benefits as permanent workers.

12. The Respondent No. 4 in its Affidavit-In- Opposition stated inter alia that the said Respondent under its agreement with the petitioner provided outsource persons to the petitioner Grameenphone as per its requirement and after their recruitment the petitioner has the authority to control the service of the Respondent Nos. 3 . It is further stated that the wages and salaries were paid to the Respondent Nos. 3 after getting paid from the petitioner for the services rendered by the Respondent Nos. 3. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 4..

99

Annual Report 2018

recruited. the Respondent Nos. 3 on temporary and contract basis to fulifil the requirements of the petitioner company and they are not permanent workers of the said Respondent No. 4.

13. Mr. AF Hassan Arif, assisted by Mr. Sheikh Fazie Noor Taposh and Mr. Meah Mohammad Kawsar Alam, learned Advocates for the petitioner Grameenphone took us through the judgments of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Court below and submits that the said courts committed a gross error in law in holding that the Respondent Nos. 3 are employees/ workers of the petitioner because there is no relationship of employer and employees between the petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 3. The learned Advocate further submits that there is no privity of contract between the Respondent Nos. 3 workers and the petitioner Grameenphone and that the Respondent Nos. 3 was not a party to the contract between the petitioner Grarneenphone and the Respondent No. 4 Smart Services Ltd./ Jamsons International and therefore the said Respondent Nos. 3 cannot claim to be a worker or employee of the petitioner company or claim any benefit from it. The learned Advocate further submits that section 213 of the Labour Law, 2006 is for enforcing a right guaranteed to a worker under an award, settlement or law and that since it is not admitted by the petitioner that the Respondent Nos. 3 are its workers the question of treating them permanent under the law does not arise.

14. Mr Monsurul Hoque Chowdhury, assisted by Mr. Syed Mizanur Rahman and Mr. Abdul Mannan assisted by Mr Md Haroon-ar Rashid, learned Advocates for the Respondent Nos.3 submit that the Respondent. Nos. 3 have completed three months probationary period with the petitioner Grameenphone and have become permanent in their jobs and are entitled to be treated as permanent workers of the petitioner Grameenphone. The learned Advocate further submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 are getting salaries and other benefits by the petitioner Grameenphone through the Respondent No.4 Smart Services Ltd./Jamsons International and the courts below rightly found them permanent workers of the petitioner which calls for no interference by this Court.

15. The learned Advocate further submits that even though no appointment letter was issued by the petitioner in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 nevertheless since they have been working for the petitioner Grameenphone for several years at their premises and driving their cars and rendering other services as per their requirement they are deemed to be permanent employees of the petitioner company.

16. Mr. Amit Das Gupta, the learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 were recruited by them as per instruction of the petitioner Grameenphone on temporary basis to provide services as drivers to the petitioner company and that the salaries and other financial benefits were paid to the Respondent Nos. 3 after getting paid by the petitioner for the services rendered by them. The learned Advocate further submits that the Respondent Nos. 3 were recruited for temporary period only and that they are not permanent workers of the Respondent No.4. .

17. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

18. In the instant case the Respondents workers filed cases before the Labour Court to be treated as permanent workers of the defendant petitioner Grameenphone. They have alleged in the plaint that they are workers of the petitioner Grameenphone and are receiving salaries from the petitioner. This fact has been denied by the petitioner all along. The Labour Court in its judgments and orders have held that the Respondent No. 1 workers have been working for more than three months and, as such, as per the provisions of Labour Law, 2006 they are deemed to be permanent workers. The Labour Court has also held that the Respondent No. 1. plaintiffs satisfied the conditions in section 2(65) of the Labour Law, 2006 and they should be considered workers. In the judgment and order however no reasoning appear to be given why and on what grounds the Labour Court found the plaintiff respondent permanent workers of the petitioner Grameenphone.

100

Annual Report 2018

19. It is admitted by the petitioner Grameenphone and all the parties that the Respondent No. 1 are workers within the definition of Labour Law, 2006. It is also admitted that they have been employed for more than three months and that they are rendering service to the petitioner Grameenphone. The point for adjudication therefore is to decide whose workers the Respondent No. 3 is i.e. who is the employer of the Respondent No. 3 plaintiff worker. For an application under section 213 of the Labour Law, 2006 to he maintainable in the Labour Court for being treated as permanent worker of the petitioner Grameenphone it must be first evident that he is a worker of the petitioner Grameenphone.

20. The petitioner’s case is that the Respondent No. 3 are workers of the Respondent No. 4, Smart Services Ltd. and/or Jamsons International and that the service of the Respondent No. 3 workers have been procured through a contract between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 4 are contractors and they issued appointment letters in favour of the Respondent Nos. 3 for rendering services to the petitioner as outsourced workers without being a party in the contract between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4. The Respondent Nos. 3 plaintiff workers on the other hand, claimed that they are rendering services to the petitioner Grameenphone at their premises and driving their Vehicles and getting their salaries from the petitioner Grameenphone through the Respondent No. 4 and therefore they should be considered workers of the petitioner Grameenphone.

21. Outsourcing services is a new concept in our country. Not just labour but also professional services may be procured through outsourcing. It is a process by which the recipient of service enters into an agreement with a contractor/ service provider who engages persons to render services to the service recipient. In such a situation, there is no employment contract between the service recipient and the service renderer. The contract exists between the service recipient and the contractor and consideration for the services are provided by the service recipient to the contractor. If the service recipient is not satisfied with the service rendered by the persons engaged by the contractor then his remedy lies for breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement against the contractor. Likewise if the contractor does not receive adequate consideration for providing his service through his appointed employees, his remedy lies against the service recipient. The service recipient is generally not concerned who renders the service to him as long as the service sought is rendered adequately. As can be reasonably expected the service recipient may set certain criteria and conditions to be observed by the service renderer and he has a discretion to reject any person through whom the service is provided by the contractor; but in all such cases the matter is governed by the contract between the service recipient and contractor. It is a contract of services as opposed to a contract of employment.

22. A recruiting agency on the other hand, recruits persons including workers and professionals for being employed by a third party. After the. candidates are selected they are sent to the service recipient who employs them under an employment contract on terms and conditions agreed between the service renderers and service recipients who becomes the employer. After the worker/professional is employed by the service recipient the person recruiting the worker drops off the picture and there is a direct relationship of employer and employee between the service recipient and the worker. Such situation is commonly seen in our country when workers are recruited for employment for overseas, construction sites, industries etc. The recruiting agency gets a commission for his service from the overseas employer and also sometimes from the recruited workers and the workers get their salaries and other benefits directly from their employer for the duration of their employment . In the case of outsourcing the worker gets his salary and other benefits from the contractor as long as he renders his services to the service recipient.

23. In an unreported decIsion of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7068 of 2O11 in Sharmeen Annie vs First Labour Court, Dhaka and another it has been held:

101

Annual Report 2018

“To be an employee one has to be in the employer’s pay roll and subject to the latter’s control on questions of employment. There has to be a contract of employment inter se, containing terms of employment. Nothing like that is present in the file before us. It transpires, the respondent No. 2 is indeed an employee of an independent contractor named TEAM Services. The contractual relationship is between the petitioner and TEAM Services, the respondent No. 2 is not a privy to it. So, he has no cause of action against the petitioner.”

“Whereas First Party has offered to provide the outsource personnel for the Second Party and Second party has agreed to assign the outsource personnel of the First party on the terms and conditions hereinafter contained.”

24. In the instant case it is admitted that the Respondent No. 3 workers are rendering services as drivers for the petitioner Grameenphone. It is also admitted that their salaries and allowances and other benefits are being paid directly by the Respondent No. 4 although it has been urged on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 workers that the salaries and other financial benefits are being paid to them by the Respondent No. 4 on behalf of the petitioner Grameenphone although there is no written contract of employment between the petitioner Grameenphone and the Respondent No. 3 . From the facts and circumstances of the case it has to be seen whether any unwritten contract of employment can be construed between the petitioner Grameenphone and the Respondent No 3 workers or whether there is any contract of employment between the Respondent No. 3 workers and the contractor/service provider Respondent No.4.

25. The consistent case of the respondent workers is that they are rendering services to the petitioner as drivers by driving their cars as per their requirements by wearing uniforms provided to them, carrying ID cards and even receiving salaries from the petitioner through the respondent No. 4 Smart Services Ltd. and Jamsons International. However, it has been admitted by the PW 1 in the Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as the Labour Court case) that Staff Uniforms have been provided by the petitioner Grameenphone but in cross-examination he admitted that there is no logo of the petitioner grameenphone on his uniform. Moreover, in the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 Smart Services dated 16-1-2006 in clause 4 it has been stated that uniforms will be provided by Smart Services and in Clause D-5 it has been stated that a sum of Taka 400 would be given monthly by the petitioner Grameenphone to the respondent No. 4 Smart Services Ltd. as dress allowance . Thus it cannot be said with certainty that uniforms were provided by the petitioner Grameenphone. The “ID Cards” provided to the respondent workers have the petitioner company’s name as well as that of the respondent No. 4 Smart Services/Jamsons International. Moreover it appears that they are not called ‘ID Cards’ but ‘Gate Pass’ as evident from the evidence of PW I in the said case. Thus this is also not conclusive evidence that the workers/drivers are the exclusive employees of the petItioner Grameenphone.

26. Quite apart from the evidence adduced by the witnesses in the Labour case the petitioner and the respondent No.4 entered into a contract dated 16-2-2006 under the heading “Agreement for providing Outsource Personnel” Exhibit Kha. In the said agreement it has been stated in the preamble that

27. In the first clause of the said agreement in paragraph A Clause 1 it has been stated that outsource personnel services will be rendered at different locations of the Second Party. In letters dated 31-10-2016 and 23-10-2016 from the respondent No. 4 Jamsons International and Smart Service respectively addressed to the petitioner (Annexures G and G- 1 in the Supplementary Affidavit dated 9- 11 -2016) the respondent No. 4 has admitted that they are providing outsource workers to the petitioner and they are being paid by them. The two letters are reproduced below: (G and G- I)

102

Annual Report 2018

“JAMSONS INTERNATIONAL

Dated 31-10-2016ToMr. Zahed Bin AhsanChief Procurement Officer (Acting)Global SourcingGrameenphone Ltd.Dhaka.Re: No further renewal of agreement Ref:No: GP/SA/POP/JI/06 made on I6-2-2006 after 30-11-2016

Dear Sir,We have a long standing business relationship with you since 2000. We have tried our best to serve your company upon providing outsource workers. It may be mentioned here that most of the workers provided by us to you, had filed cases to be treated permanent workers under you as per the provision of Labour Act, 2006. Mentionable, here that under the agreement executed between us, we could not treat the workers as our permanent workers as well. The agreement executed between us will be expired on 30- 11 -2016. Due to enhancement of taxes and other expenditure it had become difficult for us to continue our business and, as such, we are not inclined to extend our last agreement with you which will be exired on 30-11-2016.

Hope our relation will remain same.With thanksSd/ Illegible 31-10-16.Md. Mostofa Kamal KhanOn behalf of CEO” Annexure G- 1 “Smart Services Ltd..Mr. Zahed Bin AhsanChief Procurement Officer (Acting)Global SourcingGrameenphone Ltd. BasundharaDhaka.

Subject: Deduction of money from the monthly bill of Smart Services Ltd.

Dear Sir,We have noticed that a huge amount of money have been deducted from the service Bill of Smart Services Limited for the month of September 2016. The deduction was so sudden and without any notice and the amount is almost half of the service charge of Smart Services Ltd.We would like to say that this information was communicated to us neither by Grameen Phone nor by any other sources. We are a business company and we will not do any business where there is no profit since we have to pay to the workers.

We have 24 clients and none of them have deducted money from our bill showing the cause of Tax.

We would request you to kindly solve the issue as early as possible so that the October 2016 bill can be forwarded to Grameenphone.

In short we would like to inform you that we cannot bear the loan of such a big amount deduction from our bill.

103

Annual Report 2018

Thank you for our good understanding.Yours sincerely,Sd/lllegiblePeter P Sarkar Managing Director.”

28. From the language of the aforesaid letters it appears that the workers are not employees of the petitioner. Furthermore in all the pleadings of the respondent No. 4 it has been clearly and categorically stated that the said respondent No.3 workers were appointed by them for a temporary period. Paragraph 13 and 22 of the written statement of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Labour case is as follows:

“13. That Grameenphone Ltd. did not issue them any appointment letter as an employee rather they are the user of the services against which Grameen Phone Ltd. pays service charge to the respondents (Jamsons International) every months as per the contractual agreement.”

“22. That Jamsons International is the temporary and contract basis employer of the petitioner.”

29. Our attention has also been drawn to an undertaking given by the respondent plaintiff worker to the respondent No. 4 marked as exhibit “Ta” where at the time of giving appointment by the respondent No. 4, the respondent worker clearly stated that “Avwg ¯§vU© mvwf©m wjt Gi GKRb WªvBfvi wnmv‡e MÖvgxY †dvb Awdm PvKzix Ki‡Z AvMÖnxÓ

Exhibit Ta runs as follows:Smart Services Ltd.

A½xKvi bvgv

1| Avwg ¯§vU© mvwf©‡mm wjt Gi GKRb WªvBfvi wnmv‡e MÖvgxY †dvb Awd‡m PvKzix Ki‡Z AvMÖnx|

2| Avgvi gvwmK †eZb n‡e 5320 UvKv|

3| hw` Avwg G¨vw•‡W›U bv K‡i Mvox Pvjv‡Z cvwi I Avgvi cwi¯‹vi cwi”QbœZv, eënvi I Mvox Pvjbvq KZ…©cÿ mšyÍó nb Zvn‡j Av‡iv 560 UvKv cÖwZ

gv‡m †c‡Z cvwi| ev wZb gvm c‡i cvIqv hvB‡Z cv‡i|

4| Avgvi PvKzixi †ghv` †hvM`vb n‡Z 12 gvm ch©šÍ n‡e| fv‡jv Kv‡Ri Rb¨ mgq e„w× n‡Z cv‡i|

5| Avwg A_ev KZ…©cÿ PvB‡j GK gv‡mi †bvwU‡k PvKzixi Pzw³cÎ evwZj Ki‡Z cvi‡ev|

6| Z‡e Pzwi, AmvgvwRK Kvh©Kvjvc, Lvivc eënvi, gv`Kvmw³ wbqg f‡½i Kvi‡Y Ges gvivZ¥K `yN©Ubvi Kvi‡Y †h †Kvb mgq Avgv‡K PvKzix n‡Z

eiLv¯Í Kiv hv‡e| G‡ÿ‡Î Avwg †Kvb cÖwZev` Ki‡Z cvie bv A_ev †Kvb ms¯’vi mvnvh¨ cÖv_©bv Ki‡ev bv|

7|AvwghLbMÖvgxY†dvbAwd‡miMvoxPvjv‡evZLbBAvgv‡K†Kv¤úvbx†_‡KcÖ`ËBDwbdg©ci‡Zn‡e|†h†KvbKvi‡bBGiAb¨_vKivhv‡ebv|

8| cÖwZw`b 10 N›Uv KvR Ki‡Z n‡e Ges Gi AwZwi³ KvR Ki‡j Zv IfviUvBg e‡j we‡ewPZ n‡e|

9| IfviUvB‡gi Rb¨ cÖwZN›Uvq Avwg 27 UvKv K‡i cv‡ev Ges Kvh©¨¯’‡ji evB‡i †Kvb Awdwmqvj Kv‡R ivwÎ hvcb Ki‡j cÖwZ ivwÎi Rb¨ 600 UvKv

_vKv I LvIqv wnmv‡e cv‡ev|

10| 12 gvm PvKzix c~Y© Kivi ci Avwg `yBwU Drm‡e Drme fvZv †c‡Z cvwi hv MÖvgxY †dvb Awdm ¯§v‡U©i gva¨‡g †`‡eb| GK GKwU †evbvm 2,800

UvKv|

11| ¯§vU© mvwf©‡mm wjwg‡UW Zv‡ì wbqg Abymv‡i Avgvi KvQ †_‡K †gvU 6000 (Qq nvRvi UvKv) wmwKDwiwU wW‡cvwRU ivL‡e| Avgvi e¨w³MZ Kvi‡Y

MÖvgxY †dvb Gi Mvoxi ÿwZ n‡j GB UvKv †_‡K †K‡U ivLv n‡e| Ab¨_vq PvKzix †Q‡o †M‡j H UvKvi evKx Ask †diZ cv‡ev|

12| MÖvgxY †dvb †_‡K wba©vwiZ gvB‡jR Avgv‡K w`‡Z n‡e| w`‡Z AcviM n‡j Avgv‡K PvKzix †_‡K eiLv¯Í Kiv hv‡e| A_ev Ab¨ eë¯’v MÖnY Ki‡Z

cvi‡e|

13| Avwg Rvwb †h Mvox Pvjv‡bvi mgq Avgv‡K wmU‡eë euva‡Z n‡e|

14| Mvoxi jMeB h_vh_ wjwce× Ki‡Z n‡e|

15|†Kv¤úvbxicÖ`Ë†gvevBj†dvbGieënvigvwmK1500(f¨vUIU¨v•Qvovc‡bikZUvKv)mxwgZivwLe†ewkn‡jAwZwi³A_©w`‡Zeva¨

_vK‡e|cici3gvmwej†ewkn‡j†Kv¤úvbxAvgviweiæ‡×eë¯’vwb‡Zcvi‡e|

16| gvÎ GK gv‡mi †bvwU‡k Avgv‡K PvKzix †_‡K eiLv¯Í Kiv hv‡e, †m †ÿ‡Î Avgvi †Kvb e³e¨ A_ev `vex cÖ‡hvR¨ n‡e bv|

104

Annual Report 2018

Avwgmy¯’¨Ae¯’vq¯^Áv‡bIB”QvcÖ‡bvw`Zn‡qGBAw½KvibvgvqAvgvi`¯ÍLZw`jvgGesGiwbqgcvjbKi‡eve‡j¯^xKv‡ivw³Kijvg:

Zvs- bvgt

¯^vÿxAvBwWbs

30. After having given the aforesaid undertaking to the respondent No.4 and thereafter receiving salary and other benefits from the respondent No. 4 for several years without any objection it does not lie in their mouth to say that they are not employees of the respondent No. 4 Smart Service Limited but employees of some one else like the petitioner simply because they are rendering services to the petitioner as driver as per the petitioner’s requirements.

31. Further section 3Ka of the Labour Law, 2006 as amended by section 5 of the Bangladesh Labour Law, 2013 states as follows:

Ò3K|wVKv`vims¯’v†iwR‡óªkb|-(1)Ab¨†KvbAvB‡bwfbœZihvnvBwKQz_vKzKbv†Kb,†KvbwVKv`vims¯’v,†hbv‡gBAwfwnZnDKbv†Kvb,

hvnv wewfbœ ms¯’vq Pzw³‡Z wewfbœ c‡` Kg©x mieivn Kwiqv _v‡K miKv‡ii wbKU nB‡Z †iwR‡óªkb e¨ZxZ GBiƒc Kvh©µg cwiPvjbv Kwi‡Z cvwi‡e bv|

(2)GBAvB‡biAaxbGZ`y‡Ï‡k¨wewacÖYxZnBevi6(Qq)gv‡mig‡a¨†`‡kwe`¨gvbmKiwVKv`vims¯’vmiKv‡iiwbKUnB‡Z†iwR‡óªkbMÖnY

Kwi‡Z eva¨ _vwK‡e

(3)wVKv`vims¯’vØvivmieivnK„ZkÖwgKMYmswkøówVKv`v‡iikÖwgKwnmv‡eMb¨nB‡ebGesZvnvivkÖgAvB‡biAvIZvf~³_vwK‡eb|

(4) GB avivi Aaxb †iwR‡óªkb cÖ`v‡bi c×wZ wewa Øviv wba©vwiZ nB‡e|

e¨vL¨v:GBaviviD‡Ïk¨cyiYK‡íKgx©ewj‡ZkÖwgKmnwbivcËvKg©x,MvoxPvjKBZ¨vw`‡KeySvB‡e|Ó

32. The aforesaid provision gives statutory recognition to outsourcing arrangements and provides clearly that outsourced employees will be employees of the contractor. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent worker that this provision came into force in the year 2013 and will not be applicable to the respondent workers as they started their employment prior to the said provision being enacted. This contention is however misconceived since even though statutory recognition was not given prior to 2013 the practice of outsourcing services of workers and professionals has been prevalent all over the world including our country for several years before getting statutory recognition in the Labour Law, 2006 and was never restricted by law and the parties anyone to the contract and for providing of such service. After inclusion of section 3Ka in the. Bangladesh Labour Law, 2006 there remains little room for doubt on the arrangement of outsourcing services of workers.

33. In an unreported decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1105 of 2012 along with 19 others in Airtel vs Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka on similar facts as in the present case before us the concept of outsourcing service from third party has been recognized and affirmed by this Court.

34. On the facts and evidences before us therefore we do not see any contract of employment or service between the respondent worker and the petitioner Company Grameenphone. The respondent workers are merely outsourced workers /drivers employed by the respondent No. 4 on the terms and conditions agreed between the Petitioners and the Respondents No. 4. Smart Services Ltd. and/or Jamsons International. Thus since the respondent Nos. 3 plaintiff workers are not even employees of the petitioner Grámeenphone the question of treating them ‘permanent workers’ of the petitioner does not arise.

35. Section 213 of the Labour Law, 2006 states as follows:

‘213. Application to Labour Court Any Collective Bargaining Agent, employer or worker may apply to the Labour Court to enforce any right guaranteed to him or by any award, settlement of contract under this Act”

105

Annual Report 2018

36. Under the aforesaid provision of law, a worker, Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) or an employee may file an application before the Labour Court for the enforcement of a right guaranteed under any settlement, award, contract or law.

38. The cases in the Labour Court for direction upon the petitioner Grameenphon Limited to treat the respondent plaintiff workers as permanent worker is therefore not maintainable under section 213 of the Labour Law, 2006 on this ground as well.

39. Thus the judgments and orders dated 12-9-2012 passed by the Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka dismissing Appeal No. 82 of 2011 (Annexure D) along with 263 similar Appeals affirming the judgment dated 30-3-2011 passed by the First Labour Court, Dhaka in BLL Case No. 284 of 2008 allowing the case along with 263 similar cases are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and set aside.

40. Accordingly, all the Rules are made absolute.There will be no order as to costs.Ed.

Source: The Dhaka law Report (August 2018)

Statistics

107

Annual Report 2018

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

OF

POPU

LATI

ON

BY

ECO

NO

MIC

ACT

IVIT

IES

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

OF

POPU

LATI

ON

BY

ECO

NO

MIC

ACT

IVIT

IES

Maj

or o

ccup

atio

n20

1020

1320

16-1

7(*)

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Pro

fess

iona

l, te

chni

cal

1.89

0.52

2.41

2.68

1.09

3.77

2.86

1.21

4.07

Adm

inis

trat

ive,

man

ager

ial

0.59

0.10

0.69

0.

490.

080.

570.

890.

111.

00

Cle

rical

wor

kers

0.

910.

101.

01

0.74

0.18

0.92

0.77

0.14

0.91

Ser

vice

and

Sal

es w

orke

rs

8.56

2.60

11.1

68.

141.

469.

609.

100.

9210

.02

Agr

icul

ture

, for

estr

y &

fishe

ries

15.1

910

.51

25.7

013

.87

7.50

21.3

710

.04

9.64

19.6

8

Prod

uctio

n, t

rans

port

and

cra

ft

& tr

ade

labo

urer

and

oth

ers

10.7

42.

3713

.11

15.3

16.

5321

.84

18.5

26.

6325

.15

Tot

al

37.8

816

.20

54.0

841

.23

16.8

558

.07

42.1

818

.65

60.8

3

(In m

illio

n)

Maj

or o

ccup

atio

n20

1020

1320

16-1

7(*)

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Pro

fess

iona

l, te

chni

cal

3.5

1.0

4.5

4.6

1.9

6.5

4.7

2.0

6.7

Adm

inis

trat

ive,

man

ager

ial

1.1

0.2

1.3

0.8

0.1

1.0

1.5

0.2

1.7

Cle

rical

wor

kers

1.

70.

21.

91.

30.

31.

61.

20.

21.

4

Ser

vice

and

Sal

es w

orke

rs

15.8

4.8

20.6

14.0

2.5

16.5

15.0

1.5

16.5

Agr

icul

ture

, for

estr

y &

fis

herie

s28

.119

.447

.523

.912

.936

.816

.515

.932

.4

Prod

uctio

n,

tran

spor

t an

d cr

aft

& t

rade

lab

oure

r an

d ot

hers

19.9

4.4

24.2

26.4

11.2

37.6

30.4

10.9

41.3

Tot

al

70.0

30.0

100.

071

.029

.010

0.0

69.3

30.7

100.

0

Not

e: (*

Pro

visi

onal

) ind

icat

es p

opul

atio

n 15

yea

rs a

nd a

bove

as

per L

abou

r For

ce S

urve

y 20

16-1

7

Sour

ce: L

abou

r For

ce S

urve

y 20

10, 2

013

and

2016

-17;

Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s.

Not

e: (*

Pro

visi

onal

) ind

icat

es p

opul

atio

n 15

yea

rs a

nd a

bove

as

per L

abou

r For

ce S

urve

y 20

16-1

7

Sour

ce: L

abou

r For

ce S

urve

y 20

10, 2

013

and

2016

-17;

Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s.

(In p

erce

nt o

f tot

al)

108

Annual Report 2018

POPU

LATI

ON

AG

ED 1

5 YE

AR

S A

ND

ABO

VE

BY M

AJO

R I

ND

UST

RY

Maj

or I

ndus

try

2010

2013

20

16-1

7 (*

)M

ale

Fem

ale

Tota

l M

ale

Fem

ale

Tota

l To

tal

Agric

ultu

re, f

ores

try

& fi

sher

ies

15.2

210

.51

25.7

317

.18

9.01

26.1

9 24

.7

Min

ing

and

quar

ryin

g 0.

090.

020.

110.

210.

020.

23

0.1

Man

ufac

turin

g

4.82

1.91

6.74

5.72

3.78

9.50

8.

8

Elec

tric

ity, g

as a

nd w

ater

0.

110.

010.

100.

170.

030.

20

0.1

Cons

truc

tion

2.39

0.23

2.62

1.96

0.17

2.14

3.

4

Trad

e, h

otel

and

rest

aura

nt

7.31

1.08

8.39

7.50

0.90

8.40

9.

9

Tran

spor

t, st

orag

e, i

nfor

mat

ion

and

com

mun

icat

ion

3.79

0.25

4.04

3.75

0.14

3.89

5.

4

Fina

nce

& b

usin

ess

serv

ices

an

d re

al e

stat

e0.

880.

121.

000.

750.

120.

87

0.5

Hea

lth,

edu

catio

n, p

ublic

ad

min

istr

atio

n &

def

ense

1.79

0.53

2.32

2.28

1.11

3.39

4.

4

Com

mun

ity

and

pers

onal

se

rvic

es

and

othe

rs1.

811.

563.

371.

311.

542.

85

3.5

Tot

al

37.8

816

.20

54.0

841

.23

16.8

558

.07

60.8 (In

mill

ion)

Not

e: (*

Pro

visi

onal

) ind

icat

es p

opul

atio

n 15

yea

rs a

nd a

bove

as

per L

abou

r For

ce S

urve

y 20

16-1

7So

urce

: Lab

our F

orce

Sur

vey

2010

, 201

3 an

d 20

16-1

7; B

angl

ades

h Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics.

109

Annual Report 2018

POPU

LATI

ON

AG

ED 1

5 YE

AR

S A

ND

ABO

VE

BY M

AJO

R I

ND

UST

RY

Maj

or I

ndus

try

2010

2013

20

16-1

7 (*

)

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Tota

l Ag

ricul

ture

, for

estr

y &

fish

erie

s28

.119

.447

.629

.615

.545

.140

.6

Min

ing

and

quar

ryin

g 0.

20.

00.

20.

40.

00.

40.

2

Man

ufac

turin

g

8.9

3.5

12.5

9.9

6.5

16.4

14.5

Elec

tric

ity, g

as a

nd w

ater

0.

20.

00.

20.

30.

10.

30.

2

Cons

truc

tion

4.4

0.4

4.8

3.4

0.3

3.7

5.6

Trad

e, h

otel

and

rest

aura

nt

13.5

2.0

15.5

12.9

1.5

14.5

16.3

Tran

spor

t, st

orag

e &

com

mun

icat

ion

7.0

0.5

7.5

6.5

0.2

6.7

8.9

Fina

nce

& b

usin

ess

serv

ices

an

d re

al

esta

te1.

60.

21.

81.

30.

21.

50.

8

Hea

lth,

edu

catio

n, p

ublic

adm

inis

trat

ion

& d

efen

se3.

31.

04.

33.

91.

95.

87.

2

Com

mun

ity a

nd p

erso

nal

serv

ices

and

ot

hers

3.3

2.9

6.2

2.3

2.7

4.9

5.8

Tot

al

70.0

30.0

100.

071

.029

.010

0.0

100.

0

(In p

erce

nt o

f tot

al)

Not

e: (*

Pro

visi

onal

) ind

icat

es p

opul

atio

n 15

yea

rs a

nd a

bove

as

per L

abou

r For

ce S

urve

y 20

16-1

7So

urce

: Lab

our F

orce

Sur

vey

2010

, 201

3 an

d 20

16-1

7; B

angl

ades

h Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics.

110

Annual Report 2018

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

OF

EMPL

OYE

D P

ERSO

N A

GED

15

YEA

RS

AN

D A

BOV

E BY

EM

PLO

YMEN

T ST

ATU

S, R

ESID

ENCE

AN

D S

EX

Em

plo

ym

en

t St

atus

Rur

al (*

)U

rban

(*)

Nat

iona

l (*)

Mal

eFe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Empl

oyer

1.

790.

091.

880.

790.

030.

822.

590.

122.

71

Ow

n ac

coun

t wor

ker

14.7

16.

1920

.90

4.91

1.14

6.05

19.6

27.

3326

.95

Cont

ribut

ing

fam

ily

help

er1.

384.

826.

200.

330.

470.

801.

715.

296.

99

Empl

oyee

11

.71

2.91

14.6

36.

252.

909.

1517

.96

5.82

23.7

8

Oth

ers

0.21

0.06

0.28

0.09

0.02

0.12

0.31

0.09

0.40

Tota

l 29

.81

14.0

843

.89

12.3

74.

5716

.94

42.1

818

.65

60.8

3

Not

e: *

= Pr

ovis

iona

lSo

urce

: Lab

our F

orce

Sur

vey

2016

-17;

Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s.

(In m

illio

n)

111

Annual Report 2018

DIS

TRIB

UTI

ON

OF

EMPL

OYE

D P

ERSO

N A

GED

15

YEA

RS

AN

D A

BOV

E BY

EM

PLO

YMEN

T ST

ATU

S, R

ESID

ENCE

AN

D S

EX

Empl

oym

ent

Stat

us

Rur

al (*

)U

rban

(*)

Nat

iona

l (*)

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Empl

oyer

2.

90.

13.

11.

30.

11.

44.

20.

24.

4

Ow

n ac

coun

t wor

ker

24.2

10.2

34.4

8.1

1.9

9.9

32.3

12.1

44.3

Cont

ribut

ing

fam

ily

help

er2.

37.

910

.20.

50.

81.

32.

88.

711

.5

Empl

oyee

19

.34.

824

.010

.34.

815

.029

.59.

639

.1

Oth

ers

0.4

0.1

0.5

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.7

Tota

l 49

.023

.172

.120

.37.

527

.969

.330

.710

0.0

Not

e: *

= Pr

ovis

iona

lSo

urce

: Lab

our F

orce

Sur

vey

2016

-17;

Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s.

(In p

erce

nt o

f tot

al)

112

Annual Report 2018

EMPL

OYE

D P

OPU

LATI

ON

S AG

ED 1

5 YE

AR

S A

ND

ABO

VE

BY E

CON

OM

IC S

ECTO

R, S

EX

AN

D A

REA

Empl

oym

ent

Stat

usR

ural

(* )

Urb

an (*

)N

atio

nal (

*)

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

Mal

e Fe

mal

e To

tal

In M

illio

n

Agric

ultu

re12

.48

10.2

222

.70

1.09

0.91

1.99

13.5

711

.13

24.6

9

Indu

stry

5.83

1.61

7.44

3.45

1.53

4.98

9.28

3.15

12.4

2

Serv

ice

11.5

02.

2413

.74

7.84

2.13

9.97

19.3

44.

3723

.71

Tota

l29

.81

14.0

843

.89

12.3

74.

5716

.94

42.1

818

.65

60.8

3%

of T

otal

Em

ploy

men

t

Agric

ultu

re20

.516

.837

.31.

81.

53.

322

.318

.340

.6In

dust

ry9.

62.

712

.25.

72.

58.

215

.35.

220

.4Se

rvic

e18

.93.

722

.612

.93.

516

.431

.87.

239

.0To

tal

49.0

23.1

72.1

20.3

7.5

27.9

69.3

30.7

100.

0Co

lum

n %

Agric

ultu

re41

.972

.651

.78.

819

.911

.832

.259

.740

.6In

dust

ry19

.611

.517

.027

.933

.529

.422

.016

.920

.4Se

rvic

e38

.615

.931

.363

.346

.658

.845

.823

.539

.0To

tal

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

010

0.0

100.

0

Not

e: *

= Pr

ovis

iona

lSo

urce

: Lab

our F

orce

Sur

vey

2016

-17;

Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s.

113

Annual Report 2018

EMPL

OYM

ENT

IND

ICES

OF

IND

UST

RIA

L W

OR

KER

S IN

SEL

ECTE

D I

ND

UST

RIE

S (B

ase:

19

88 -

89 =

100

)

Perio

dJu

teC

otto

nPa

per

Cem

ent

Fert

ilize

rPe

trol

eum

Pain

ts &

Var

nish

es

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Prod

uctio

n W

orke

rsA

ll E

mpl

oyee

sP

rodu

ctio

n W

orke

rsA

ll E

mpl

oyee

sPr

oduc

tion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Empl

oyee

s

2003

-200

469

.07

66.5

671

.69

71.8

129

.47

34.1

914

3.96

127.

8295

.45

100.

2899

.46

116.

4416

7.91

155.

35

2004

-200

565

.46

62.5

871

.76

71.7

826

.72

30.3

814

5.05

128.

6492

.22

96.2

510

9.26

118.

5516

7.37

156.

27

2005

-200

665

.87

63.1

271

.90

71.9

729

.86

31.4

214

6.56

130.

2389

.69

94.5

711

0.35

121.

1319

3.58

155.

80

2006

-200

765

.14

59.0

672

.47

72.4

927

.11

30.5

914

8.62

132.

7989

.13

94.1

610

7.90

118.

7118

5.56

152.

32

2007

-200

864

.35

57.8

172

.56

72.6

224

.91

28.2

215

0.13

134.

4685

.14

89.6

210

1.90

118.

0417

7.00

147.

20

2008

-200

964

.59

58.0

472

.69

72.6

222

.87

26.1

815

4.93

139.

4080

.53

86.5

310

5.58

121.

0718

0.75

150.

52

2009

-201

065

.04

58.4

674

.88

74.3

023

.51

26.7

616

6.28

152.

3082

.61

88.0

611

4.71

131.

3420

7.48

169.

30

2010

-201

165

.08

58.5

075

.02

74.4

523

.68

26.9

516

8.74

154.

7482

.98

88.3

611

7.71

134.

8721

7.11

177.

38

2011

-12

72.6

161

.32

75.0

274

.44

21.4

522

.93

194.

0616

0.00

84.0

277

.72

106.

3312

8.00

153.

8212

7.54

2012

-13(

P)

78.7

772

.37

75.0

574

.55

22.3

924

.32

200.

9116

2.67

91.7

083

.53

100.

5612

7.54

150.

0012

3.35

2013

Janu

ary

79.2

172

.75

75.0

374

.60

22.5

924

.66

201.

2316

2.96

92.0

183

.54

100.

2712

6.97

150.

8012

3.48

Febr

uary

79.2

272

.76

75.0

474

.62

22.5

724

.63

201.

3716

3.11

92.1

583

.47

99.4

512

6.65

151.

8712

4.41

Mar

ch79

.22

72.7

675

.05

74.6

222

.59

24.6

820

1.64

163.

4191

.98

83.3

510

0.27

126.

4915

2.40

124.

88

Apr

il79

.22

72.7

675

.05

74.6

322

.55

24.6

620

1.78

163.

5692

.19

83.6

810

1.08

126.

8115

2.40

124.

65

May

79.2

372

.76

75.0

574

.63

22.5

824

.66

201.

7916

3.57

90.5

683

.10

100.

8212

6.82

151.

8712

4.19

June

78.8

172

.77

75.0

574

.63

22.6

024

.67

201.

9216

3.72

90.5

683

.10

100.

8212

7.30

151.

3412

3.95

P= P

rovi

sion

alSo

urce

: Mon

thly

Sta

tistic

al B

ulle

tin, B

angl

ades

h Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics

114

Annual Report 2018

PRO

DU

CTIV

ITY

IND

ICES

OF

IND

UST

RIA

L W

OR

KER

S IN

SEL

ECTE

D I

ND

UST

RIE

S (B

ase:

19

88 -

89 =

100

)

Perio

dJu

teC

otto

nPa

per

Cem

ent

Fert

ilize

rPe

trol

eum

Pain

ts &

Var

nish

es

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

Pro

duct

ion

Wor

kers

All

Em

ploy

ees

2003

-04

80.9

9 84

.04

201.

9220

1.59

114.

4998

.68

362.

8240

8.64

144.

1113

7.17

132.

7211

3.92

473.

1751

1.39

2004

-05

82.6

5 86

.35

251.

2824

6.96

113.

1099

.47

413.

9446

6.74

142.

6213

6.64

106.

9998

.63

617.

3966

1.24

2005

-06

76.0

2 79

.34

287.

3828

7.10

107.

6895

.48

435.

5049

0.11

134.

3812

7.45

115.

7810

5.48

577.

4071

7.41

2006

-07

79.3

2 87

.48

366.

2836

6.18

98.5

687

.34

454.

4650

8.63

139.

1313

1.70

118.

8610

8.03

663.

9780

8.86

2007

-08

89.8

3 10

0.00

400.

0639

9.74

112.

8099

.57

469.

8452

4.59

116.

2211

0.41

113.

4997

.98

672.

1380

8.20

2008

-09

91.6

5 86

.84

411.

7641

4.98

92.7

368

.86

535.

1859

4.61

104.

9997

.38

78.8

668

.48

623.

4074

8.78

2009

-10

91.6

5 86

.84

411.

7641

4.98

92.7

368

.86

503.

0154

9.19

88.2

382

.77

105.

2891

.95

683.

9483

8.18

2010

-11

92.6

8 10

3.10

421.

0042

4.67

103.

5792

.64

513.

7656

0.25

76.3

571

.72

105.

8992

.41

706.

5686

6.47

2011

-12

99.7

7 10

9.13

393.

5139

6.58

290.

9127

3.58

479.

2048

9.44

70.0

480

.95

117.

2799

.75

938.

97

1228

.25

2012

-13(

P)

106.

20

115.

6439

0.05

400.

9529

7.28

273.

7450

0.81

618.

5475

.66

80.3

713

1.44

103.

6410

42.7

2 12

68.4

2

2013

Janu

ary

102.

39

111.

4939

9.29

401.

5930

2.65

277.

25 5

01.6

3 6

19.4

4 8

6.20

94.9

414

8.62

117.

3910

36.1

8 12

65.4

4

Febr

uary

96.2

5 10

4.79

399.

3640

1.60

279.

3925

6.02

501.

5161

9.15

89.3

998

.69

127.

9810

0.49

1028

.11

1255

.04

Mar

ch89

.27

97.1

939

8.66

400.

9628

3.39

259.

4050

2.23

619.

7290

.42

99.7

813

8.25

109.

5910

23.7

7 12

49.3

8

Apr

il98

.04

106.

7439

8.81

401.

0528

0.26

256.

2850

5.64

623.

8047

.07

51.8

613

8.38

110.

3010

22.6

2 1

250.

28

May

84.1

791

.64

398.

4440

0.68

290.

4826

5.98

505.

7162

3.88

30.4

733

.20

122.

7697

.60

1025

.04

1253

.51

June

232.

8925

3.57

298.

9340

1.18

288.

7626

4.53

507.

4162

5.80

69.2

942

.82

138.

4910

9.44

1027

.08

1254

.05

P= P

rovi

sion

al, S

ourc

e: M

onth

ly S

tatis

tical

Bul

letin

, Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s

115

Annual Report 2018

AVERAGE WAGE RATES FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN PRINCIPAL TOWNS

Types of Labour

Town 2006 - 07

2007 - 08 2008-09 2012-13 2015-16 Monthly

Oct.,2018 Nov. 2018 Dec. 2018

Mason (Skilled)

Chittagong 221.50 240.75 270.83 442.33 437.00 495.00 500.00 500.00

Dhaka 228.00 250.92 286.33 401.09 495.00 545.00 546.00 546.00

Khulna 188.00 206.42 254.00 414.82 468.00 497.00 498.00 500.00

Narayanganj 225.00 247.08 250.00 389.18 450.00 885.00 885.00 886.00

Rajshahi 184.50 204.92 230.58 391.00 482.00 515.00 516.00 516.00

Rangpur 192.08 248.18 250.00 382.50 436.00 468.00 470.00 470.00

Sylhet 200.00 - 300.00 392.75 444.00 472.00 472.00 472.00

Helper to Mason

Chittagong 118.00 136.57 216.67 270.00 394.00 446.00 448.00 450.00

Dhaka 131.00 150.00 200.00 275.20 387.00 425.00 425.00 430.00

Khulna 98.67 116.57 180.00 331.56 387.00 420.00 425.00 425.00

Narayanganj 121.25 151.66 190.83 330.40 394.00 442.00 444.00 444.00

Rajshahi 96.83 109.17 186.25 296.33 386.00 436.00 438.00 440.00

Rangpur 98.18 104.55 180.00 271.45 466.00 492.00 492.00 492.00

Sylhet 150.00 - 182.50 295.00 478.00 500.00 500.00 500.00

Carpenter (Skilled)

Chittagong 280.00 280.00 310..83 427.00 473.00 492.00 492.00 492.00

Dhaka 250.00 287.00 300.00 431.00 477.00 496.00 498.00 500.00

Khulna 150.00 117.50 226.92 335.82 421.00 460.00 460.00 460.00

Narayanganj 250.00 265.83 300.00 481.36 423.00 455.00 455.00 455.00

Rajshahi 143.33 165.83 209.58 320.92 422.00 462.00 462.00 462.00

Rangpur 153.33 170.00 210.00 305.17 417.00 455.00 455.00 455.00

Sylhet 200.00 - 220.83 402.50 512.00 448.00 450.00 450.00

Plumber Chittagong 250.00 262.50 310.42 438.89 492.00 536.00 536.00 536.00

(Sanitary fitter)

Dhaka 258.33 250.00 333.33 486.89 489.00 540.00 540.00 540.00

Khulna 154.58 195.25 243.33 404.18 482.00 505.00 505.00 505.00

Narayanganj 250.00 275.00 296.67 442.09 477.00 515.00 515.00 515.00

Rajshahi 200.00 175.00 211.67 373.42 480.00 505.00 505.00 505.00

Rangpur 178.75 238.18 250.10 379.17 473.00 500.00 500.00 500.00

Sylhet 200.00 - 300.00 375.42 485.00 502.00 502.00 502.00

Painter Chittagong 217.50 255.83 307.08 415.78 483.00 512.00 512.00 515.00

Dhaka 218.33 267.00 310.42 431.89 470.00 500.00 500.00 500.00

Khulna 157.08 183.33 220.67 366.82 483.00 505.00 505.00 505.00

Narayangaj 227.00 234.17 256.67 432.27 482.00 505.00 505.00 505.00

Rajshahi 150.00 172.50 210.00 344.00 482.00 506.00 506.00 508.00

Rangpur 160.91 195.00 248.33 390.42 482.00 507.00 508.00 508.00

Sylhet 200.00 - 300.00 397.00 475.00 507.00 508.00 508.00

Electrician Chittagong 250.00 300.00 325.00 471.78 453.00 580.00 580.00 580.00

Dhaka 258.33 272.00 333.33 500.64 459.00 480.00 480.00 480.00

Khulna 152.50 181.67 234.17 385.27 455.00 475.00 475.00 475.00

Narayangaj 250.00 304.00 392.50 526.55 441.00 480.00 480.00 480.00

Rajshahi 200.00 187.50 221.67 341.58 442.00 480.00 480.00 480.00

Rangpur 182.28 213.18 248.33 371.25 444.00 472.00 472.00 475.00

Sylhet 200.00 - 300.00 402.20 446.00 475.00 480.00 480.00

(Value in Taka)

116

Annual Report 2018

Types of Labour

Town 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 2008-09 2012-13 2015-16 Monthly

Oct.,2018 Nov. 2018 Dec. 2018

Brick Breaking 1” size khua per 100 cft

Chittagong 775.00 720.83 837.50 906.00 1091.00 1130.00 1130.00 1135.00

Dhaka 800.00 1020.00 1066.67 1424.20 1090.00 1108.00 1108.00 1109.00

Khulna 617.25 597.17 670.83 340.00 1090.00 1110.00 1111.00 1112.00

Narayangaj 800.00 1000.00 920.83 996.70 1089.00 1118.00 1118.00 1119.00

Rajshahi 733.33 820.83 991.67 1583.08 1074.00 1100.00 1102.00 1102.00

Rangpur 714.55 758.18 1000.00 2104.44 1079.00 1099.00 1010.00 1010.00

Sylhet 800.00 - 800.00 988.09 1082.00 1106.00 1107.00 1108.00

Situ Mosaic per sft. (fitting charge)

Dhaka 25.82 25.00 25.83 32.00 44.00 62.00 63.00 63.00

Glazed Tile per sft. (fitting charge)

Dhaka 20.17 25.00 25.83 32.00 45.00 68.00 68.00 68.00

Floor Tile Per sft. (fitting charge)

Dhaka 20.17 25.00 25.83 32.00 43.00 70.00 70.00 70.00

Source: Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

117

Annual Report 2018

AVER

AGE

WAG

E RA

TES

FOR

IN

DU

STR

IAL

WO

RK

ERS

IN B

AN

GLA

DES

H

Indu

stry

Type

s of

La

bour

2005

- 06

2006

- 07

2007

- 08

2008

-09

2012

-13

2015

-16

Mon

thly

Oct

.,201

8N

ov. 2

018

Dec

. 201

8

Med

ium

& L

arge

Sca

le In

dust

ry

(i) C

otto

n Te

xtile

Ski

lled

129.

67

129.

67

164.

89

228.

25

294.

17

360.

0042

4.00

425.

0042

7.00

Uns

kille

d10

9.94

10

9.94

120.

53 1

56.4

6 21

3.25

28

6.00

438.

0033

9.00

341.

00

(ii) J

ute

Text

ileS

kille

d 12

9.67

12

9.67

16

3.55

22

4.08

279

.33

349.

0039

6.00

397.

0039

8.00

Uns

kille

d10

9.94

10

9.94

-14

1.85

209

.08

278.

0034

0.00

341.

0034

3.00

(iii)

Mat

chS

kille

d 12

9.67

12

9.67

15

8.98

21

0.83

26

6.17

326.

0037

7.00

378.

0037

9.00

Uns

kille

d10

9.94

10

9.94

117

.81

142

.31

200

.33

272.

0032

3.00

324.

0032

5.00

(iv)

Eng

inee

ring

(fitte

r)

Ski

lled

262.

38 2

80.0

6 30

4.96

32

9.44

375.

67

442.

0048

1.00

482.

0048

2.00

Uns

kille

d

146.

0016

4.67

192.

46 2

16.9

0 2

64.0

033

5.00

389.

0039

0.00

390.

00

(v) E

dibl

e O

ils

Ski

lled

126.

50

163.

34

145.

69

226.

13

279.

08

356.

0040

8.00

408.

0041

0.00

Uns

kille

d10

7.67

12

0.29

185

.91

172.

50

219.

92

284.

0035

8.00

358.

0036

0.00

(vi)

Sm

all &

C

otta

geS

kille

d 15

2.61

169

.54

185.

02 2

04.7

1 2

68.9

2-

--

-

Uns

kille

d-

- -

- -

--

--

(vii)

C

onst

ruct

ion

Ski

lled

191.

49

205.

50 2

25.7

5 2

65.0

443

1.75

--

--

Uns

kille

d99

.56

111.

12

128.

13

163.

25 3

26.9

2 -

--

-

Sour

ce: M

onth

ly S

tatis

tical

Bul

letin

, Ban

glad

esh

Bure

au o

f Sta

tistic

s

(Nom

inal

wag

es in

Tak

a)

118

Annual Report 2018

WAGE RATE INDICES BY MAJOR SECTORS IN BANGLADESH (Base: 1969 – 70 = 100)

Period General Nominal Indices

Agriculture Fishery Manufacturing Construction2006-07 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 5459.66 4832.49 4741.95 6536.03 4683.912010-11 5781.64 5325.63 5086.67 6778.06 4983.362011-12 6469.17 6133.57 5020.23 7221.17 6583.082012-13 7388.42 7399.85 5739.22 7950.57 7651.932013-14 8097.40 8282.91 6566.36 8699.92 8237.892014-15 8898.78 9254.25 7129.29 9552.95 9004.442015-16 9745.83 10275.92 7755.89 10454.73 9776.942016-17 10597.35 11242.77 8421.18 11387.72 10591.042017-18(P) 11281.46 11963.23 8972.37 12132.86 11284.052018

January 11361.12 12055.25 9015.74 12232.92 11377.12

February 11423.30 12120.53 9061.37 12311.45 11450.15

March 11460.76 12153.17 9111.80 12327.95 11465.49

April 11491.48 12175.46 9152.63 12369.57 11504.20

May 11514.70 12190.58 9179.65 12418.26 11549.48

June 11570.14 12255.86 9210.86 12477.16 11604.26

July 11623.33 12323.53 9243.89 12502.29 11627.64

August 11649.55 12345.03 9276.31 12535.27 11658.31

September 11730.46 12433.39 9327.94 12643.64 11759.10

October 11827.85 12544.05 9392.78 12746.52 11854.78

November 11932.73 12665.85 9460.02 12853.32 11954.11

December 11978.43 12706.45 9505.65 12917.72 12014.01

Note: P = Provisional, Source: Monthly Statistical Bulletin, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

119

Annual Report 2018

WAGE RATE INDEX BY SECTORS: BANGLADESH(Base: 2010-11=100)

Sector 2013-14

2014-15

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Jan,19 Feb,19 Mar,19

General 118.82 124.69 132.81 141.46 150.59 161.07 162.35 163.01

Percentage change (Point to Point)

5.50 4.94 6.52 6.50 6.46 6.21 6.48 6.56

Percentage change (over previous month)

0.73 0.80 0.40

1. Agriculture 118.44 124.51 132.48 141.22 150.27 160.91 162.23 162.76


5.68 5.12 6.41 6.59 6.41 6.26 6.56 6.61

Percentage change(over previous month)

0.81 0.83 0.32

i) Agriculture

118.40 124.46 132.44 141.19 150.23 160.90 162.25 162.77


5.64 5.12

6.42 6.60 6.40 6.28 6.59 6.65


0.82 0.84 0.32

ii) Fish 120.81 126.85 134.59 143.19 152.63 161.12 161.66 161.99


7.97 5.00 6.12 6.37 6.61 4.96 4.92 4.48


0.30 0.34 0.20

2. Industry 119.07 124.38 132.02 140.27 149.45 159.29 160.37 161.31


4.97 4.47 6.16 6.24 6.55 6.08 6.26 6.29


0.61 0.68 0.59

i) Construction

119.93 124.84 129.97 137.43 145.32 153.11 153.86 154.99

120

Annual Report 2018

Sector 2013-14

2014-15

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

Jan,19 Feb,19 Mar,19


4.56 4.09 4.18 5.37 5.75 5.09 5.19 5.22


0.34 0.49 0.74

ii) Production

121.86 127.28 136.18 146.01 157.81 171.82 173.59 174.14


9.27 4.44 7.70 7.22 8.08 7.91 8.23 8.28


1.09 1.03 0.32

3. Service 120.16 126.15 136.03 145.01 154.44 165.50 166.99 167.69


5.75 4.98 7.86 6.60 6.51 6.24 6.52 6.82


0.61 0.90 0.42

Source: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

121

Annual Report 2018

CON

SUM

ER P

RIC

E IN

DEX

: N

ATIO

NA

L(B

ase:

200

5-06

= 1

00)

Perio

dG

ener

al

Inde

xIn

dex

by e

xpen

ditu

re g

roup

1.

Food

&B

ever

age

2.N

on-

Food

I.C

loth

ing

&Fo

otw

ear

II.Fu

el &

Ligh

ting

III.

Hou

seho

ldEq

uipm

ent

IV.

Med

ical

C

are

&

Hea

lth

Expe

nse

V.Tr

ansp

ort &

C

omm

unic

atio

n

VI.

Rec

reat

ion,

Ente

rtai

nmen

t

VII.

Mis

c.

Goo

ds &

Se

rvic

es

2012

-13

181.

7319

3.24

166.

9717

9.66

155.

6119

5.33

159.

6615

9.34

157.

2318

2.54

2013

-14

195.

0820

9.79

176.

2319

4.77

163.

4720

6.14

164.

0616

7.20

164.

3819

3.75

2014

-15

207.

5822

3.80

186.

7920

8.50

171.

8021

4.45

180.

7718

1.78

168.

0220

4.21

2015

-16

219.

8623

4.77

200.

6623

3.38

182.

7422

7.39

199.

9420

1.34

171.

0121

1.61

2016

-17

231.

8224

8.90

209.

9224

3.56

194.

0123

5.85

206.

7021

0.78

177.

5621

7.51

2017

-18

245.

2226

6.64

217.

7625

5.24

200.

2524

9.68

209.

2821

8.80

183.

6522

3.81

Mar

,18

248.

6527

1.27

219.

6426

0.22

200.

7525

3.21

210.

4721

9.94

184.

2722

6.55

Apr

,18

248.

8527

1.42

219.

9026

0.33

200.

8625

4.08

210.

7822

0.47

184.

3122

6.72

May

,18

245.

8026

5.27

220.

8326

1.92

201.

6125

4.88

211.

4522

1.55

184.

4022

8.29

Jun,

1824

6.82

265.

3322

3.09

270.

9320

2.06

255.

3921

1.80

225.

8718

4.57

228.

60

Jul,1

824

9.65

269.

9122

3.66

270.

9420

2.11

255.

7921

1.96

226.

6018

4.71

233.

10

Aug

,18

253.

0727

5.09

224.

8427

2.39

202.

5925

7.76

213.

3422

9.48

184.

8223

3.94

Sep

,18

257.

6228

1.86

226.

5427

3.56

203.

5626

2.51

214.

2923

2.09

185.

0123

6.64

Oct

,18

259.

1328

3.44

227.

9627

5.01

204.

4926

5.50

214.

8223

4.21

185.

2923

9.03

Nov

, 18

258.

0028

1.24

228.

2127

5.46

204.

7726

5.68

214.

9123

4.47

185.

3523

9.18

Dec

,18

258.

1328

1.17

228.

6027

5.85

205.

2626

5.97

215.

1723

5.17

185.

41

239.33

Jan,

1926

1.58

285.

5023

0.91

277.

5620

9.66

266.

2421

6.04

235.

8318

8.11

240.53

Feb,

1926

1.36

284.

9623

1.10

277.

6820

9.72

266.

3521

6.08

236.

2318

8.14

241.42

Mar

,19

262.

4528

6.78

231.

2527

7.74

209.

7726

6.57

216.

1823

6.90

188.

16241.46

Sou

rce:

Ban

glad

esh

Bur

eau

of S

tatis

tics

122

Annual Report 2018

CON

SUM

ER P

RIC

E IN

DEX

: R

URA

L(B

ase:

200

5-06

= 1

00)

Perio

dG

ener

al

Inde

xIn

dex

by e

xpen

ditu

re g

roup

1.

Food

&B

ever

age

2.N

on-

Food

I.C

loth

ing

&Fo

otw

ear

II.Fu

el &

Ligh

ting

III.

Hou

seho

ldEq

uipm

ent

IV.

Med

ical

C

are

&

Hea

lthEx

pens

e

V.Tr

ansp

ort &

C

omm

unic

atio

n

VI.

Rec

reat

ion,

Ente

rtai

nmen

t

VII.

Mis

c.

Goo

ds &

Se

rvic

es

2012

-13

183.

9019

2.14

170.

7918

4.54

157.

4018

6.40

164.

6316

0.98

174.

0718

7.05

2013

-14

196.

9020

7.72

179.

6920

0.61

164.

0519

7.62

168.

8716

6.01

179.

7219

9.74

2014

-15

209.

1022

1.02

190.

1321

4.07

171.

3420

9.29

187.

1817

4.09

183.

8421

2.34

2015

-16

220.

1023

0.31

203.

8624

2.26

179.

1922

2.11

211.

0418

8.69

187.

8422

1.12

2016

-17

231.

0224

3.08

211.

8325

3.51

187.

4522

9.57

219.

3519

3.71

194.

8122

6.47

2017

-18

244.

1725

9.86

219.

2126

3.96

192.

8924

6.23

221.

1519

7.24

201.

3123

3.72

Mar

,18

247.

7626

4.50

221.

1426

8.19

193.

2425

0.35

221.

8319

8.01

202.

0123

7.82

Apr,1

824

7.86

264.

5622

1.29

268.

3019

3.39

250.

5022

2.27

198.

0620

2.08

238.

07

May

,18

243.

6225

7.06

222.

2226

9.82

194.

2325

1.32

222.

4919

8.57

202.

2024

0.36

Jun,

1824

4.38

257.

1122

4.13

277.

1319

4.85

252.

3622

2.89

200.

1420

2.50

240.

74

Jul,1

824

7.40

261.

5722

4.86

277.

1119

4.86

252.

4922

3.09

200.

8620

2.75

247.

65

Aug,

1825

1.04

266.

8922

5.82

278.

3619

5.00

253.

5922

4.87

203.

8320

2.85

248.

17

Sep,

1825

5.86

273.

6322

7.58

279.

1719

6.18

258.

8722

5.39

205.

8520

3.13

251.

53

Oct

, 18

257.

4327

5.37

228.

8828

0.61

197.

7326

1.54

225.

7520

7.24

203.

2325

1.67

Nov

, 18

256.

1127

3.03

229.

1828

1.09

198.

1926

1.76

225.

8720

7.39

203.

3225

1.81

Dec

, 18

256.

1927

2.94

229.

5328

1.46

198.

8426

1.98

226.

1820

7.47

203.

3925

1.90

Jan,

1926

0.22

278.

6123

0.96

283.

4220

0.68

261.

8322

6.34

207.

9220

6.61

253.

74

Feb,

1925

9.93

278.

0023

1.18

283.

6020

0.78

261.

9822

6.37

208.

0620

6.64

255.

13

Mar

,19

261.

1027

9.85

231.

2628

3.65

200.

8226

2.22

226.

4320

8.22

206.

6525

5.17

Sour

ce: B

angl

ades

h Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics

123

Annual Report 2018

CON

SUM

ER P

RIC

E IN

DEX

: U

RBA

N(B

ase:

200

5-06

= 1

00)

Perio

dG

ener

al

Inde

xIn

dex

by e

xpen

ditu

re g

roup

1.

Food

&B

ever

age

2.N

on-

Food

I.C

loth

ing

&Fo

otw

ear

II. F

uel &

Ligh

ting

III.

Hou

seho

ldEq

uipm

ent

IV.

Med

ical

C

are

&

Hea

lthEx

pens

e

V.Tr

ansp

ort

&

Com

mun

icat

ion

VI.

Recr

eatio

n,En

terta

inm

ent

VII.

Mis

c.

Goo

ds &

Se

rvic

es

2012

-13

177.

7119

5.91

161.

8817

0.39

153.

5521

1.03

151.

1515

7.53

139.

0617

6.96

2013

-14

191.

7321

4.85

171.

6118

3.66

162.

8022

1.11

155.

8216

8.52

147.

8318

6.37

2014

-15

204.

7623

0.56

182.

3219

7.93

172.

3322

3.53

169.

8019

0.26

150.

9519

4.16

2015

-16

219.

3124

5.66

196.

3921

6.50

186.

8623

6.67

180.

9321

5.50

152.

8419

9.87

2016

-17

233.

2926

3.09

207.

3822

4.66

201.

6024

6.87

185.

0522

9.59

158.

9320

6.45

2017

-18

247.

1728

3.19

215.

8323

8.67

208.

7725

5.74

188.

9624

2.55

164.

5921

1.57

Mar

,18

250.

2828

7.79

217.

6524

5.08

209.

4625

8.24

191.

0424

4.11

165.

1221

2.64

Apr,1

825

0.67

288.

1821

8.05

245.

1820

9.52

260.

3919

1.10

245.

1616

5.14

212.

70

May

,18

249.

8328

5.30

218.

9824

6.91

210.

1526

1.15

192.

5424

6.87

165.

1921

3.39

Jun,

1825

1.32

285.

3822

1.70

259.

1621

0.41

260.

7219

2.82

254.

2316

5.21

213.

61

Jul,1

825

3.80

290.

2722

2.08

259.

2221

0.51

261.

5719

2.91

254.

9716

5.24

215.

13

Aug,

1825

6.83

295.

1222

3.53

261.

0421

1.38

265.

0919

3.60

257.

7516

5.37

216.

37

Sep,

1826

0.86

301.

9122

5.15

262.

9021

2.10

268.

9019

5.28

261.

0016

5.45

218.

26

Oct

,18

262.

2830

3.14

226.

7526

4.36

212.

3227

2.45

196.

1126

3.94

165.

9222

3.43

Nov

, 18

261.

5130

1.28

226.

9126

4.77

212.

3827

2.57

196.

1626

4.31

165.

9622

3.59

Dec

,18

261.

7230

1.22

227.

3526

5.19

212.

6827

3.01

196.

3226

5.69

166.

0122

3.80

Jan,

1926

4.09

302.

3023

0.85

266.

4122

0.05

273.

9919

8.42

266.

5816

8.15

224.

22

Feb,

1926

4.01

301.

9623

1.00

266.

4622

0.07

274.

0419

8.48

267.

2716

8.17

224.

48

Mar

,19

264.

9430

3.69

231.

2426

6.53

220.

1327

4.23

198.

6326

8.51

168.

2022

4.53

Sour

ce: B

angl

ades

h Bu

reau

of S

tatis

tics

124

Annual Report 2018

NOTE:

bangladesh employers’ federation€¦ · md. munir hossain 05. mr. s. humayun kabir 06. mr. kedar...

Documents