Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006
Section 4, 117, 234 and 307
Section 200, 241A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Infringements of sections 4, 117 and 234 have not been made punishable in any other provisions under Chapter 19 of the Act No.42 of 2006. As such infringements of above provisions are punishable under section 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Ain, 2006 and subject to sentence of fine upto Tk.25,000/- ...Prof. Dr. Muhammad Yunus & ors Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 275 ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006
Section 4, 117, 234 and 319(5)
Labour Welfare Foundation Law, 2006
It is admitted that at the instance of the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Employees and Labour Union of the GTC Industrial Dispute Case No.1666 of 2019 has been filed and the same is still pending in the Labour Court for final settlement. But the learned Advocate for the petitioners could not show us any law which prevents the inspection of the GTC by an authorized Inspector and lodging of a complaint for violations of some provisions of Act No.42 of 2006 during pendency of above Industrial Dispute Case. As mentioned above this complaint has been filed under section 319(5) of Act No.42 of 2006 by an authorized Inspector alleging repeated violations of provisions of section 4, 117 and 234 of above Act by the GTC which is an important actor working in the telecommunication sector of Bangladesh. The petitioners are Chairman, Managing Director and Directors of the GTC. This is not a criminal case under the Penal Code instituted by a law of enforcement agency. On consideration of above materials on record we are unable to find any substances in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that this case has been falsely instituted to tarnish the internationally acclaimed personality of petitioner No.1 who is a Nobel lauriate. ...Prof. Dr. Muhammad Yunus & ors Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 275 ....View Full Judgment

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

Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh
&
Section 216 (1)(Chha) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006:
We fail to understand how the learned Chairman of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka could entertain the appeal of respondent no. 3 in the very first place when, admittedly, there was no judicial order under challenge. In our view, the appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal itself was absolutely misconceived and therefore not maintainable at all. ...L.B. Jute Mills Ltd Vs. Labour App. Tribunal & Ors., (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 16 ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006
Section 303 (umo)
Labour Welfare Foundation Law, 2006
In view of specific allegations that the petitioners intentionally failed to create, maintain and send to the complainant the registers of leave, register of daily attendance, the register of overtime of the labourer and employees and register of works, we are unable to find any prima facie substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the framing of the charge under section 303 (umo) of Act No.42 of 2006 against the petitioners is without any lawful basis. ...Prof. Dr. Muhammad Yunus & ors Vs. The State & anr, (Criminal), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 275 ....View Full Judgment

The alleged violations were first detected by the complainant on 09.02.2020. He issued a letter to the GTC for taking remedial measures. No satisfactory reply having received a second inspection was held on 16.08.2021 and again the same violations were discovered. This Complaint was filed in the concerned labor court on 28.08.2021. As such, it prima facie appears that this case has a date of occurrence and the same has been filed within six months from the date of occurrence as provided in Section 314 of Bangladesh Labor Ain, 2006. Moreover it is well settled that a question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which can be determined on consideration of evidence to be adduced at trial. ...Prof. Muhammad Yunus Vs. The State, (Criminal), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 162 ....View Full Judgment