Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Bangladesh Biman Corporation Ordinance (XIX of 1977)
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Sections 7, 14 and 31(2) (d)

When the legislature in the parent legislatoin did not signify any intention to classify the employees of Biman into freedom fighters nd non—freedom fighters, such classification could not he by the Government in its Rule making power while exercising the delegated authority under the parent legislation, since that would amount to acting beyond the .purposes of the legislation itself—Rule Conferring two years ante-dated seniority to freedom fighter employees of Birnan is ultra vires rule making power under the Ordinance—Bangladesh Biman Employees (Seniority of Freedom fighters) Rules, 1980, Rules 2, 3 and 4.
Amirul Islam and others Vs, Bangladesh Birnan Corporation and others; 2 BLD (AD) 1. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 14 and 31

Service matter—Fixation of seniority Interpretation of Statute—Meaning of the words existing ‘employees’ and ‘new entrants’ in the regulations made under the Bangladesh Biman Corporation Ordinance— Whether employees of the Biman whose service has been transferred to the Corporation are ‘existing employees’ or employees of the Biman as well as those appointed by the corporation before the coming into force of the Regulations are also ‘existing employees’?
Majority view per Shahabuddin Ahmed, .J (B.H. Chowdhury and M.H. Rahman JJ Concurring)-.-The Ordinance was promulgated in 1977 with a provision for making appointments of officers and employees of the Corporation—In exercise of power conferred by Article 30 the Corporation has made the Regulations in December 1979 and it came into force from the date—The respondents having been appointed earlier than the Regulations, that is, in June 1978 cannot be brought into the class of ‘new entrants’ as referred to in Rule 18(a) for the purpose of determination of seniority unless the Regulations were given effect from the date of such appointment or from the date of the Ordinance—’Existing employees’ therefore mean those employees who were in the Corporations service when the Regulations were made and published—The employees who are appointed after the Regulation came into force are the ‘new entrant’s—Bangladesh Biman Regulations, 1979, Rules 18 and 19.
Minority view per Fazie Munim, CJ. (A.T.M. Afzal, J concurring)—The reference to new entrants’ in the Regulation 18(a) and existing employees’ in Regulation 19 is to the newly appointed employees of the Corporation as mentioned under section 14 and the employees of the Biman who stood transferred to the Corporation under section 31(d) of the Ordinance respectively—The Regulations cannot in the absence of such classification in the Ordinance divide the employees into two categories, such as, ‘new entrants’ and ‘existing employees’—It is only the parent Act i.e, the Ordinance which must provide the service structure of the Corporation’s employees—What will be the service structure cannot, unless authorised expressly by the Ordinance, be affected by or under the Regulation—Provisions of the Regulations 18(a) and 19 must be construed with reference to sections 14 and 3 1(d) of the Ordinance which, by their terms, created the demarcation between the two groups of employees, namely, those employees of the Biman who stood transferred to the Corporation on the date of the coming into operation of the Ordinance and those employees who will be appointed after the Corporation came into force.
Parent Law shall prevail—There is no dispute that provisions of a subordinate legislation must be in conformity with those of its parent legislation and in the case of any conflict the provisions of the parent law shall prevail—In this case the Ordinance is the parent law and the Regulations are its subordinate legislation—and if there is any vacuum in the subordinate legislation in respect of any matter,. but about which specific provision has been made in the parent law, then the provision of the parent law shall be read into the subordinate legislation.
Bangladesh Biman corporation Vs. Syed Aftab Ali and others; 7BLD (AD) 192. ....View Full Judgment