Legitimate expectation—
Since the respondents could not establish that enterprise in question was one of those enterprises shares of which as mentioned in the Gazette Notification were under scrutiny for transfer, as such, the respon­dents in the light of mere mentioning in the Gazette Notification "shares of some Textile Industrial Enterprises are under scrutiny for transfer" cannot be said to have in any case of legitimate expectation to have the National Cotton Mills Ltd denationalized. Mere approaching the Government by the 30% shareholders of a particular Nationa­lized Industrial Enterprise would not create a right or entitlement to have the enterprise denationalized because decision as regard denationalization of a particular nationalized industrial enterprise exclu­sively lies with the Government and th^t such decision is only taken in the national interest and as such even on the establish­ment of 30% shareholdings right Bangla­deshi nationals cannot as of right claim denationalization of the nationalized enterprise if Government consider that denationalization would be against national interest. Since there is no material on record wherefrom it can be said that Government in rejecting the respondent's prayer for denationalization of the enterprise in question acted in violation of its declared policy relating to denationa­lization or that departed from its policy relating to denationalization and as such the Government in rejecting representation made by the respondents as conveners of the Committee of the shareholdings of the National Cotton Mills Ltd. has not acted unfairly or unreasonably. Chairman Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation vs Nasir Ahmed Chy and others 7 BLC (AD) 144.

Expectant — Expectation — legitimate
Respondents of their own 'approached the authority seeking denationalization of the enterprise in question and that they failed to establish that the enterprise in question, i.e. National Cotton Mills Ltd. was one of those Textile Industrial Enterprise whose shares as was mentioned in the Gazette Notification of September 27, 1982 were under the scrutiny for denationalization. Since the respondents could not establish that enterprise in question was one of those enterprise shares of which as mentioned in the Gazette Notification were under scrutiny for transfer, as such the respondent in the light of the mere mentioning in the Gazette Notification "shares of some Textile Industrial Enterprises are under scrutiny for transfer" cannot be said to have in any case of legitimate expectation to have the National Cotton Mills Ltd. denationalized. Bangladesh Textile Mills Vs N.A..Chowdhury & Or.s 11 BLT (AD)-186.

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.

Interpretation of Statute
Vesting is a consequence of placing—if placing is unlawful, vesting is illegal- Double protection-Meaning of—If cause is removed no single protection is left
With regard to Article-4(1), as introduced by Ordinance No. XXV of 1976, there is a fresh vesting without any further proceeding or formality. But this vesting is also very much dependent upon the lawful placing of an industrial enterprise under a Corporation. Vesting is a consequence of placing. Placing is the cause, vesting is the consequence. If placing goes, vesting also falls through. So whether it is Article 10( 1A) or Article 4(a), the result Is the same. If there is a lawful placing, vesting takes place under Article 10(1A) and a double vesting takes place under Article-4(1). But if the placing itself was unlawful, the vesting did not take place, either under Article- 10( 1A) or under Article-4(1). The consequence may have a double protection, but if the cause is removed, no single protection is left. [Para-83] Bangladesh Vs. MIS. Dhaka Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. 1 BLT (AD)-1.

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.
A company or enterprise which is a public enterprise or nationalized enterprise retains its corporate character if it is allowed by the Corporation established under P.O. 27 of 1972 to manage its affairs according to its Memorandum and Articles of Association or agreement or deed under which it was originally created.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
The learned single Judge in the instant case was of the view that this Court did not decide the question as to whether the Corporation got power to transfer an employee of one nationalised unit to another nationalised unit but simply made an observation in this regard. With respect, we hold that the view taken and construction of law given by us in that case have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. He has placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in the case of Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust vs Burhanuddin Chowdhury reported in 33 DLR (AD) 32 1. In that case the Bangladesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust terminated the service of an employee of an industrial unit namely, Tabani Beverage Co Ltd., an abandoned property, under PO 16 of 1972 which was placed under the said Welfare Trust for running its business. The Freedom Fighters Welfare Trust was established under PO 94 of 1972. The order of termination was successfully challenged before the High Court Division in a Writ Petition and this Court on appeal affirmed the High Court Division's decision and held the order of termination in valid for lack of statutory authority on the part of the Welfare Trust.
The learned Single Judge in the instant case is found to have placed both the cases on the same footing overlooking the broad fact that the Corporation in the instant case exercised power of transfer under the provision of Article 17 of PO 27 of 1972, whereas there is no corresponding provision in PO 16 of 1972 or in PO 94 of 1972 empowering the Welfare Trust to take disciplinary action against employees of an abandoned property placed under it.
Nishat Jute Mills Ltd vs Md Sanaullah 40 DLR (AD) 298.

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.

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.
Whether the Corporation can terminate the service of an employee of a Mill placed under the Corporation—In view of the notification dated 20.9.1975 empowering the Chairman of a Corporation to terminate service of an employee of the enterprise or mill under the Corporation and also to delegate such power the Corporation can terminate the service of an employee of a Mill placed under it—Power of control, suspension and regulation includes the power of termination.
Bangladesh Jute Mills Corporation vs. Golam Moula Ahsan Chowdhury; 5 BLD (AD) 187.

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

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.

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.
This is what may be called the Government's general power of placement of any kind of industrial enterprise under a Corporation. Not being vested in the Government before its placement under a Corporation, the Government "shall pay" compensation to its former shareholders.If no compensation is payable, then the industrial enterprise must have been placed under a Corporation not under the general power of placement, but under the power of placement of abandoned properties or those owned by a statutory corporation. Bangladesh vs Dhaka Steel Works Ltd and others 45 DLR (AD) 69.

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

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