Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Bangladesh Industrial Enterprise (Nationalization) Order 1972 [po no. 27 of 1972] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Article 4 |
Legitimate expectation—
|
Chairman Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation vs Nasir Ahmed Chy and others | 7 BLC (AD) 144 |
Article 4 (2) |
Expectant — Expectation — legitimate
|
Bangladesh Textile Mills Vs N.A..Chowdhury & Or.s | 11 BLT (AD) 186 |
Article 4 |
PO No. 27 of 1972 provides for nationalisation of certain industrial enterprises. Article 4 of the Order has vested cent per cent shares of an industrial enterprise in the Government but it has retained the separate entity of the enterprise as an independent company under Companies Act. Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah 40 DLR (AD) 298. |
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah | 40 DLR (AD) 298 |
Articles 4(a) and 1O(1A) |
Interpretation of Statute
|
Bangladesh Vs. MIS. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. | 1 BLT (AD) 1 |
Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 |
The law of master and servant will not apply to the employees of a
nationalized company which has lost its corporate character— Such
employees will be treated as employees of the corporation and can invoke
the writ jurisdiction—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article 102.
|
Mosharraf Hossain Chowdhury Vs. General Manager, Titas Gas Transmission and Distribution Co. Ltd. and another and A.K.M. Ayub Ali Vs. Eastern Refinery Ltd. and others | 1 BLD (AD) 61 |
Articles 4 to 7 and 17 |
Master and servant relationship— Whether an employee of a company under the control and management of the Corporation is to be guided by the principle of master and servant relationship—Notwithstanding the fact that under P.O. 27 of 1972 the Company was brought within the ambit of the Corporation that does not mean that the company became extinct nor for that matter it could be argued that the proceeding should not be initiated by the company itself—It was a company and the relationship between the parties was that of employee and employer. Mobarakganj Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. A.B.M. Kazi Nazrul Islam, 7 BLD (AD) 182. |
Mobarakganj Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. A.B.M. Kazi Nazrul Islam | 7 BLD (AD) 182 |
Articles 4, 10 and 17 |
An enterprise placed under a Corpora: n—Whether this destroys its separate entity and corporate character—Placement of an industrial Unit or enterprise under the control and supervision of a corporation does not necessarily destroy its corporate character but a retains its character as a separate entity— Hence, the previous relationship between the company, enterprise and its employees continues as before. Senior Manager, Messrs Dost Textile Mills Ltd. and another Vs. Sudhansu Bikash Nath; 8 BLD (AD) 66. |
Senior Manager, Messrs Dost Textile Mills Ltd. and another Vs. Sudhansu Bikash Nath | 8 BLD (AD) 66 |
Articles 5(a) and 17(1) |
The Appellate Division held in the case of Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation vs Golam Moula A Chowdhury that the Corporation, though it is not the employer of officers and employees of an industrial unit placed under it, has got power to terminate the services of officers and employees. Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah 40 DLR (AD) 298. |
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah | 40 DLR (AD) 298 |
Articles 5(a) and 17(1) |
Power of control, supervision and regulation includes the power of
transfer. As to power of transfer, though the order of transfer was not an
issue in that case this Court, by way of putting true construction of
Article 17(1), made the observation that the order of transfer from the
Jute Mills to the Zonal Office of the Corporation is "no doubt an instance
of the powers of control and regulation." Reading the judgment of this
Court in that case as a whole there can hardly be any doubt left for the
view of this Court that power of control, supervision and regulation under
Article 17(1) necessarily includes the power of transfer. This view has
been strengthened by the Gazette Notification dated 15 September 1975 as
referred to above which specifically empowers the Corporation to take any
disciplinary actions against any officer of a nationalised enterprises
under it. This Notification was issued under Article 5(a) of PO 27of1972.
|
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah | 40 DLR (AD) 298 |
Articles 5(a) and 17(1) |
In view of the Gazette Notification issued under Article 5(a) and the provisions of Article 17(1) of PO 27 of 1972, the Corporation's powers to take disciplinary action including power to transfer now stand beyond question. Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah 40 DLR (AD) 298. |
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah | 40 DLR (AD) 298 |
Article 5(a) |
Service matter—Whether an employee of a Mill after transfer to the
corporation under which it has been placed ceased to be an employee of the
Mill or is an employee of the Corporation—Jute Mills, after
nationalisation, were placed under the controlling power of the appellant
Corporation—The letter of termination and other reference to the Mill
where the respondent is to go are sufficient to indicate that he did not
cease to be an employee of the Savar Jute Mills which is merely a unit of
the Corporation—The intendment of the parties seem to be clear that the
respondent did not acquire the status of an employee of the Corporation.
|
Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation vs. Golam Moula Ahsan Chowdhury | 5 BLD (AD) 187 |
Article 10 and 10(1A) |
An unregistered amalnama without any legal proof ipso facto does not create any right, title, and interest on the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Further, burden lies heavily upon the plaintiff to prove the unregistered Amalnama when she claims title on the basis of the same, against a registered instrument–– Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, an industrial enterprise, placed under any Corporation by an order notified in the official Gazette under sub-clause (d) of clause (1) of Article 10, and all shares or other proprietary interest in such industrial enterprise shall be deemed to have always vested in the Government and no such order shall be challenged on the ground that the industrial enterprise or the shares or interest therein had not vested in the Government, or that the industrial enterprise, or any share or interest therein, was not liable to be vested in the Government. In view of the above provisions of law, there is no scope to challenge the order of nationalization, notified in the gazette by the Government and thus, suit is not maintainable. .....Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation =VS= Mst. Delwary Begum, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 135] ....View Full Judgment |
Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation =VS= Mst. Delwary Begum | 15 LM (AD) 135 |
Article 10(1A) |
This provision immunises an order of challenge only on the ground that the industrial enterprise had not vested in the Government or was not liable to be vested. If there is a lawful placing, vesting takes place under Article 10(1A) and a double vesting takes place under Article 4(1)(as introduced by Ordinance No. XXV of 1976). But if the placing itself was unlawful, the vesting did not take place, either under Article 10(1A) or Article 4(1). Bangladesh vs Dhaka Steel Works Ltd and others 45 DLR (AD) 69. |
Bangladesh vs Dhaka Steel Works Ltd and others | 45 DLR (AD) 69 |
Article 10(1)(d) |
There is a general power of placement of any industrial enterprise by the
Government under a corporation, followed by a special power of placement of
two kinds of industrial enterprises but restricting the categories in the
manner done in 30 DLR (SC) 1 69 was not quite right. When the Government
places an industrial enterprise under a Corporation and such enterprise is
neither an abandoned property nor owned by a statutory corporation, the
vesting of its shares or other proprietary interests takes place for the
first time under President's Order No. 27 of 1972.
|
Bangladesh vs Dhaka Steel Works Ltd and others | 45 DLR (AD) 69 |
Article 17(1) |
Transfer of employee—Whether Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation has got the power to transfer an employee from one Jute Mill to another—Power of control, supervision and regulation necessarily includes the power of transfer—The Government may, in respect of any scheduled industrial enterprise, placed under a corporation, take such measures as it deems necessary for efficient running of such enterprise—In view of the Gazette Notification and the corporation’s powers to take disciplinary action including power : transfer now stand beyond question. Nishat Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Md. Sanaullah; 8 BLDI (AD) 212 |
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Md. Sanaullah | 8 BLD (AD) 212 |
Article 25 |
Gratuity– A Corporation or Semi-Government Body or an autonomous body is the creation of the statue and it’s functions and activities are governed by the statute under which it was created; that in exercise of powers conferred by Article 25 of the Bangladesh Industrial Enterprises (Nationalization) Order, 1972, Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation was established and thereafter the Corporation framed regulations relating to appointment, discipline, provident fund, gratuity including the service conditions of its officers and employees which would govern the field in dispute; that the said Corporation being not under the control of the Ministry of Finance the impugned Order regarding the service conditions could not supersede the statutory provisions; that the terms and conditions of the employees of the Corporation are not similar with those of the Government servants and that the impugned Order of the Ministry of Finance does not confer on the appellants a legal right to claim gratuity. ...Obaidul Islam Chowdhury =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 39] ....View Full Judgment |
Obaidul Islam Chowdhury =VS= Bangladesh | 9 LM (AD) 39 |