Worker dismissal not in connection with industrial dispute—A dismissed worker, whose dismissal is not in connection with or in consequence of, or has not led to, an industrial dispute, cannot come within the purview of section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (I.R.O.). James Finlay and Co. Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Second Labour Court, Dacca and another, 1BLD (AD) 21

A worker, is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management and does not include a person who works under the control and supervision of a contractor. The terms of employment must establish a relationship of master and servant or employer and employee between the person employed and the establishment, and it is not enough that the person is working in the premises of a certain establishment. Karnaphuli Paper Mills Workers Union v. Karnaphuli Paper Mills Ltd. and another, 22 BLD (AD) 33.

Section 2 (XXIV) Settlement — It's binding effect—
Settlement arrived at by agreement signed by the Employer and the Employees is binding upon the parties and is enforceable without any approval of the Government. Carew and Co. Bangladesh Lid. Vs. Chairman, Khulna Labour Court & others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 187.

As it appears from the record that at the instance of the appellant the respondent No. 3 filed the Trade Union Case and it is only the appellant who, in fact, became aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Labour Court in rejecting the application filed by the respondent No. 3 under section 10(2) of IRO. It appears that under section 11 of the IRO appeal lies merely against an order of cancellation of registration under section 10 of IRO and no appeal lies against an order of rejecting of an application for cancellation of a registration of Trade Union and thus there being no scope of any appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal the appellant was entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction. There is no provision in the IRO to the effect that a Trade Union does not cease to exist due to retrenchment of its workers or the workers retain the membership of their union and it also appears the provisions of section 7A(l)(b) of IRO do not provide so. The Trade Union Case is allowed. Standard Match Factory Ltd vs Chairman, First Labour Court and ors 8 BLC (AD) 99.

Matter pending before Registrar of Trade Union—Since the Registrar of Trade Unions has to apply to the Labour Court under section 10(3) of the Ordinance and the employers have furnished some materials to that effect the matter is at least pending with the Registrar of Trade Unions. United Commercial Bank Karmachari Union Vs. S.M. Shafiul Azam and others, 11BLD (AD) 326

The High Court Division referred to section 30 of the Trade Unions Act, 1965 which was a repealed law and the Registrar of Trade Unions, has no authority to issue a certificate to a particular committee as a genuine committee declaring another committee to be a valid one. Sultan Ahmed Talukder and another vs Registrar of Trade Unions and others 9 BLC (AD) 209.

It appears that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Judges pf the High Court Division wrongly held the termination in question having been passed during pendency of the I.R.O. case is mala fide, although they themselves held that the IRO case itself was not maintainable. The impugned letter of termination does not contain any stigma upon respondent No, 2 and on the face of it, it is a termination simpliciter and is well covered by the provision of Section- 19 of the Act. The termination was not a sequal to any trade union activity on the part of respondent No. 2 nor does he claim that no termination benefit was given to him. [Para-10] Adamji Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Chairman & Anr. 7 BLT(AD)-320

Conversion of complaint—
Unless provisions of section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are complied with application under section 34 cannot be converted into one under section 25 of the Employment of Labour (Standing Order) Act, 1965. James Finlay & Co. Ltd. Vs. Chairman Second Labour Court. (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 58.

There is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance that authorises the Registrar to certify an Executive Committee of the Trade Unions to be a valid committee or to declare another committee to be invalid one. The High Court Division committed an error of law in relying on section 30 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance,1965 which has already been repealed.
Sultan Ahmed Talukder -Vs.- Registrar of Trade Union 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 149

The Companies Profits (Workers Participation) Act, 1968
Section 3 r/w
The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
Section 34
The appellant-company refused to establish Workers Participation Fund and Worker’s Welfare Fund the respondent workers were competent to enforce their right to have the said Fund established in exercise of the right conferred on them under section 3 of said Act, 1968 by filing an application to the Labour Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This view finds support in the case of M/s. Railway Men’s Stores Ltd. and another Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, 30 DLR(SC)(1978)251. ––Both the Labour Court as well as the High Court Division granted necessary relief to the respondent workers in accordance with law. Hence the impugned Judgment passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions deserves no interference by this court. .....Hotel Agrabad Ltd. Chittagong =VS= Chairman, 1st Labour Court, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 168] ....View Full Judgment

Labour Court has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to establishment of workers welfare fund—
Companies Profit (Workers) Participation Act, 1968—
Section 3— Management of Industrial undertaking is under the legal obligation of establishing the workers welfare fund—
Hotel and Restaurant being an industrial undertaking the management thereof is required under section 3 of the Companies Profit (Workers). Participation Act, 1968 to establish the workers welfare fund and implement the scheme thereunder. Labour court has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to the implementation of the scheme under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Hotel Agrabad Ltd. Chitlagong represented by its Managing DircctorVs. Chairman First Labour Court, Chittagong and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 21.

Enforcement of right—Section 34 of the Ordinance is not meant for establishment of any right but it provides for enforcement of any existing right guaranteed or secured by law, award or settlement. Chairman, Power Development Board and others Vs. Chairman, Labour Court, Khulna Division and another, 1BLD (AD)59

Labour Court: Civil Court for Limited purpose—An adjudication on an industrial dispute under section 36(2) or a proceeding on an application under section 34 of the Ordinance for enforcement of any guaranteed or secured right, though a matter of civil nature, is not a suit and does not attract all the panoply of powers of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In adjudicating or determining an industrial dispute, the Labour Court acts as a civil Court for limited purpose and it will not exercise the powers like those given in Order IX or Order XXXIX, rule I of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which the civil Court may exercise in a suit, but are in no sense necessary for deciding an industrial dispute. Pubali Bank Vs. The Chairman, First Labour Court, Dhaka and another, 12BLD (AD) 72

Entitlement to leave benefits—
A worker who ceased to be in service long before the agreement with the bargaining agent was signed, is not entitled to leave benefits under section 34. But when the Labour Court on compassionate ground granted leave benefits, such order being of substantial justice is not interfered with. Messers North Bangal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Chairman Labour Court, Rajshahi and another. 2, MLR (1997) (AD) 198.

In the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, section 34 has been amended in 1970 and thereby both the collective bargaining agent and the individual employer or worker have been given the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Whereas before the amendment it was only for a party to an industrial dispute which could invoke its jurisdiction. There lies the whole difference. James Finlay & Co. Ltd. Vs. Chairman 2nd Labour Court. (1981) 33 DLR (AD) 58.

Dis-entitlement to compensation benefits on ground of resignation—
A worker who voluntarily resigns from his service is not a worker under section 2 of the Ordinance and cannot maintain an application under section 34 for wages in respect of compensatory leave. Manager, Kushtia Sugar Mills Vs. Chairman, Khulna Labour Court. (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 162.

Labour Court — Failure of the Chairman to consult one member. who did not attend the sitting of the Court, does not render the decision of the Court invalid. General Manager, Jamuna Oil Company Ltd. Vs. Golap Rahinan and another, 2BLD(AD) 1

Labour Court to function with all members—
Law provides that a two member panel will assist the Labour Court. Absence of one member does not render the decision of the Court illegal. That does not mean that the court may function without a member. General Manager Vs. Golap Rahman. (1982) 34 DLR (AD) 166.

Whether appeal lies against an order of conviction and sentence passed by the Labour Court under section 56 of the I.R.O. — Whether jurisdiction of the High Court Division to entertain an appeal under section 36 of the Ordinance has been ousted by Martial Law Order No. 19 of 1982 — An appeal lies to the High Court Division against conviction and sentence passed by the Labour Court as it deemed to be a Court of Sessions. for the purpose of appeal from all sentences — When offences are tried the Labour Court acts as a Magistrate 1st Class but when punishment is given and sentence is recorded by it then for the purpose of appeal it shall be deemed to be a Court of Sessions—All appeals from a Court of Sessions lie to the High Court Division— MLO 19 of 1982 dealt with the decision not with award or sentence—So jurisdiction of the High Court Division to entertain an appeal against sentence passed by the Labout Court is not ousted—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of l898),S. 410—Martial Law Order No. 19 of 1982 (MLO 19 of 1982). Maqbul Hossain and others Vs. Bangladesh Milk Producers Co-operative Union Ltd. 5BLD (AD)193

Labour Court-Power of Injunction— An order of stay in the nature of an in junction under Order XXX1X Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure or under sections 52 and 53 of the Specific Relief Act, as available in a suit, is not so available in any proceeding before the Labour Court, despite the provisior of sub-section (2) of section 36 of the I.R.ft under which it is deemed as a civil Court. Pubali Bank Vs. The chairman, Fire Labour Court, Dhaka and another, 12BLD(AD)72

Labour Court deemed to be a Court of Session—
A Labour Court shall have the same powers as are vested in the Court of a Magistrate 1st class under the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall for the purpose of appeal from the sentence passed by it, be deemed to be a Court of Sessions under the Code. In other words for the purpose of an appeal from a sentence passed by Labour Court, it shall be deemed to be a Court of Session under Cr, P.C. and therefore an appeal lies to the High Court Division. Mokbul Hossain Vs. Bangladesh Milk Producers Cooperative Union Ltd. 37 DLR (AD) 38.

Transfer of a trade union leader — Plea of protection by a person in the service of a statutory public authority — Provisions of I.R.O. empowering Labour Court to give protection to a trade union leader against his harassment by transfer are not applicable to those leaders who are working in statutory public authorities like the H.B.F.C. — The basic status of the appellant (trade union leader) is that he is a worker of the Corporation and transferability or non-transferability of his service is a condition of his employment and the matter clearly comes within the purview f the Administrative Tribunal which has the lull power to give complete relief to an applicant and then the right of a trade union leader in such a case must yield to the supervening provision of the Constitution — Administrative Tribunal Act, 1980 (VII of 1981), S. 4 — Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article — 117(2). Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation and another, 10BLD (AD)71

Protection to trade union leaders—
Main object of section 47B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is to give protection to a trade union leader so that for his trade union activities he may not be harassed by the employer by way of transfer without consent. Abdul Mannan Talukder Vs. Bangladesh House Building Finance Corporation. 42 DLR (AD) 104.

Where in a given case the employer unilaterally acts detrimental to the emoluments and benefits obtained under a terminated settlement such emoluments and benefits shall continue to remain in force till a new agreement is reached between the employer and the workers or an award is made by the Labour Court. Zenith Packages Limited Vs Member Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others, 20 BLD(AD)267

Services (Re-organization and Conditions) Act, 1975
Sections 2, 3 and 5 r/w
The State Owned Manufacturing Industries Workers (Terms and Conditions of Service) Act, 1974 r/w
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 r/w
Employment Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965
A trade union can definitely enter into agreement with the management for improvement of the service and conditions of its members, but not in derogation of the laws prevalent at the relevant time– Findings of the High Court Division and the leave granting order as quoted above, the only question which is to be decided in the appeal is whether the agreement entered into by the trade unions and the corporation on behalf of the nationalized enterprises, namely, Carew and Company on 20.11.1984 fixing the scales of pay and grades and other emoluments in violation of the laws could be said to be valid and implemented and whether the said agreement created any vested right to the writ-petitioners and the same could be enforced by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under article 102 of the Constitution.
A trade union can definitely enter into agreement with the management for improvement of the service and conditions of its members, but not in derogation of the laws prevalent at the relevant time. We find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. …Sohrab Ali Miah =VS= Bangladesh Sugar & Food Industries Corporation, [7 LM (AD) 56] ....View Full Judgment