We have next drawn our attention to Section 1(4)(ka) of the বাংলাদেশ শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬.
Section 1(4)(L) contemplates organizations which shall fall within the exception of Section 1(4)(L) and shall not fall within the meaning of বাংলাদেশ শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬. We have particularly drawn attention to Section 1(4)(L) and which is reproduced hereunder:
“সরকার বা সরকারের অধীনস্থ কোন অফিস” which means Government office or institutions owned by the government. Since we are of the considered finding and opinion that the বাংলাদেশ দুগ্ধ উৎপাদনকারী সমবায় ইউনিয়ন লিমিটেড is a public body and is owned by the government therefore it is needless to state that the organizations owned by the government falls within the exception of Section 1(4)(L). Consequently the provisions of বাংলাদেশ শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ shall not be applicable in the petitioners case. Such being the position, we are also of the considered view that the petitioners’ are not workers rather they are permanent employees under a particular selection grade. .....Mesbaul Alam & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Spl. Original) 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 14
The employees must be afforded due process before seizing him of his employment. In not affording due process is a direct infringement into the employee’s fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution. .....Mesbaul Alam & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Spl. Original) 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 14 ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006
Sections 26 , 283 and 307 r/w
Code of Criminal Procedure [V of 1898]
Section 561 A —No complaint can be made directly without seeking redress to the Labour Court for non-payment of service benefits.
Mere non-payment of termination benefits or illegal termination of a worker is not an offence as evident from section 26. It will be an offence if after illegal termination, the Labour Court directed the owner/ employer to pay the termination benefits or re-employ him and if the owner/ employer disobeys the direction it will be a penal offence under section 283 and not otherwise.
S.M. Zahidul Islam (Zahid) Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) represented by its Advisor Mr. S.M. Rezaul Karim -Vs.- Syed Ahmed Chowdhury and others. (Civil) 11 ALR (AD) 84-88

The Public Corporation (Management Co-ordination) Ordinance, 1986
Section 14A
বাংলাদেশ শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬
Section 33
Writ petitioners and according to Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986, their retiring age is 60 years, but they had been given retirement at the age of 57 years in violation of the said provisions of law–– Appellate Division’s considered view is that the provisions of the Ordinance, 1986 will prevail over those of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ so far as it relates to the age of retirement. Therefore, the age of retirement from service of the writ petitioners-respondents is 60 years as envisaged under Section 14A of the Ordinance, 1986. ––It appears from the above that Section 33 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ does not provide for any provision for agitating grievances against the order of retirement. Therefore, regarding the cases in hand, Appellate Division’s considered opinion is that the grievances arose out of age of retirement does not come within the mischief of Section 33 of শ্রম আইন, ২০০৬ and as such this Division finds that the writ petitions were quite maintainable. .....Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation =VS= Ayub Ali, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 536] ....View Full Judgment