High Court Division
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Nozrul Islam Chowdhury J .
Mohammad Ullah J
City Bank Ltd Petitioner
vs
Labour Appellate Tribunal and others
………..Respondents
Judgment July 7th, 2012.
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 102(2)
Unless the question of forgery is decided properly, the question of registration of the Union is not possible, effectually and completely.
Palli Daridra Bemochan Foundation vs Palli Daridra Foundation Karmachari Union (proposed), 57 DLR (AD) 155 ref.
Ahsanul, Karim with Khairul Alam Chowdhury & Aminul Hoque, Advocates-For the Petitioner.
Mahbubul Hoque with Abdul Hye Bhuiyan, Advocates-For the Respondent No.4.
Judgment
Nozrul Islam Chowdhury J: This Rule Nisi is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-11-2011 passed by the Chairman Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No. 349 of 2011 affirming the order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the respondent No.2, 2nd Labour Court, Dhaka in BLL (Appeal) Case No. 199 of 2010 rejecting an application for addition of party filed by the petitioner for being added as respondent No.2 in the said BLL Case No. 199 of 2010 and the Rule was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause why the said judgment and order of affirmance passed by the Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 349 of 2011 should not be declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect and/or such other or further order or orders passed as to this court may seem fit and proper.
2. Facts in a nutshell relevant for the purpose of disposal of this rule are that petitioner is a schedule bank of Bangladesh and a public limited company listed with stock exchange. The respondent No.4 is the proposed trade union of the petitioner bank Karmachari Union while the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Labour Court and the Labour Director respectively; the respondent No. 4 filed an application under section 178(1) of Bangladesh Srama Ain, 2006 before the respondent No. 3 to be registered as a trade union in respect of the petitioner bank and on receipt of the said application the respondent No.3 raised certain objections on 24-10-2010 directing the respondent No.4 to meet the objections so raised ; the respondent No.4 in order to meet the queries of the respondent No. 3 submitted..a certificate purported to have been issued from the Manager, Human Resources Division of the petitioner bank showing a list of 342 workers of the petitioner bank; upon receipt of the said statement from the respondent No.4 the respondent No.3 in his turn issued a memo dated 24-11-2010 asking the petitioner bank to testify as to whether the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Human Resources Manager of the bank and submitted by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.3 is correct or otherwise; the petitioner bank having received the said memo dated 24-11-2010 inquired the matter and upon conclusion of such inquiry the petitioner issued its memo No. CBLI HO/ 2010/ 4218 dated 7-12-2010 informing the respondent No. 3 that the said certificate as referred to is a forged and fabricated one where the signature of the Manager of Human Resources of the petitioner bank was forged. It is also stated in the writ petition that one Md Shafiqur Rahman being the Manager of Human Resources of the petitioner bank on 7-12-2010 lodged a GD Entry with Gulshan Police Station having appeared in person disclosing that the respondent No.4 submitted a certificate alleged to have been issued by him, before the Labour Director forging his signature; the said GD Entry was recorded vide GD No. 528 dated 7-12-2010 with the said police station. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 in his turn issued his memo. No. kªtct/e¨vsK(856)2010/723 dated 9-12-2010 rejecting the application filed by the respondent No. 4 seeking registration of their trade union in respect of the petitioner bank and in rejecting the said application the respondent No.3 assigned the reason in the language as under:-
Dchy³ wel‡q cÖ¯ÍvweZ w` wmwU e¨vsK wjwg‡UW Kg©Pvix BDwbqb KZ©”K 12-10-2010 ZvwiL †iwR‡óªk‡bi Rb¨ AÎ `߇i Av‡e`b I ZrmsµvšÍ KvMRcÎ `vwLj Kiv nq| Av‡e`b †gvZv‡eK 08 `dv GKwU AvcwË DÌvwcZ K‡i cÖ¯ÍvweZ BDwbq‡bi eive‡i 24-10-2010 Zvwi‡L cÎ †cÖiY Kiv nq Ges cÎ cÖvwßi 15 (c‡bi) w`‡bi g‡a¨ ewb©Z AvcwË ms‡kvab mn m`m¨ fwZ© dig-wW, †bvwUk ewn, †iRywjDkb ewn, m`m¨ †iwR÷ªvi Ges µwgK bs 1,7 I 8 G DwjøwLZ KvMRvw` `vwLj Kivi Rb¨ civgk© †`qv nq| cÖ¯ÍvweZ BDwbqb AÎ `ßi KZ©”K DÌvwcZ AvcwËi µwgK bs 7 I8 Gi kZ©vw` c~i‡Y e¨_© nIqvq evsjv‡`k kªg AvBb 2006 Gi 182(3) avivi weavb †gvZv‡eK wU wmwU e¨vsK wjwg‡UW Kg©Pvix BDwbqb (cÖ¯ÍvweZ) Gi †iwR‡÷ªk‡bi Av‡e`bwU GZØviv cÖZ¨vL¨vb Kiv nj|Ó
3. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 having felt aggrieved against the said order dated 9-12-2010 passed by the respondent No. 3 preferred appeal being BLL (Appeal) No. 199 of 2010 before the 2nd Labour Court, Dhaka i.e. the respondent No.2. During pendency of the said BLL Appeal No. 199 of 2010 before the respondent No.2 the petitioner filed an application for being added as respondent in the said BLL Appeal Case No. 199 of 20 1 0 but the said application for being added as respondent was rejected by his order dated 18-4-2011 on the ground that the petitioner bank does not have any locus standi to be added as party, meanwhile on the basis of the GD Entry as mentioned above, the signature available in the certificate allegedly issued by the Human Resources Manager of the petitioner bank was sent to hand writing expert who having investigated the same, in his turn, opined that the signature in the alleged certificate is not the signature of Mr Shafiqur Rahman, Manager Human Resources of the petitioner bank and the signature available in the certificate produced by the respondent No. 4 before the respondent No.3 is a forged one. In support of the aforesaid statement made in the writ petition petitioner has annexed photo copy of the said report marking the same as Annexure-H keeping the original in the custody of the petitioner craving leave of the court to produce the same as and when asked for.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner bank having felt aggrieved by the said order dated 18-4-2011 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting its prayer for addition of party preferred an appeal being appeal No. 349 of 2011 Labour before the Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka i.e. respondent No.1 mainly on the ground that the signature of the Human Resources Manager of the petitioner bank was forged in the certificate produced by the respondent No.4 before the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the respondent No. I having heard the . parties passed his order dated 21-11-2011 disissing the appeal being appeal No. 349 of 2011 affirming the order passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the prayer for addition of party holding inter alia that the petitioner bank does not have any locus standi to be added as party relaying a decision reported in the case of Palli Daridra bimochon Foundation vs Palli daridra Bimochon Foundation Karmachari Union Bangladesh (proposed) reported in 57 DLR (AD) 155. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained the present rule.
5. Mr Ahsanul Karim, the learned Advocate appearing with Mr Khairul Alam Chowdhury and Mr Aminul Hoque for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the respondent No. 3 having received the application for registration of the trade union filed by the respondent No.4 issued its Memo dated 24-11-2010 annexing a certificate produced by the respondent No. 4 Purported to have been issued by Human Resources Manager of the petitioner bank asking for a report over the genuineness or otherwise of the said certificate from the petitioner bank whereupon an inquiry was made and it was detected that the said certificate was a forged one where the signature of the Human Resources Manager of the petitioner bank was forged. The petitioner bank in its turn submitted its report Annexure- B-1 to the respondent No.3 and it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that it is the report on the basis where of along with other ground the respondent No.3 rejected the appeal of the respondent No.4, to be registered as trade union, therefore, the learned Advocate submits further that the case reported in 57 DLR (AD) is discernible one and the facts involved in this particular case particurly in view of the existence of the act of forgery detected in the instant case the said decision is not applicable in this case.
6. Mr Karim submits further that the memo issued by the respondent No. 3 asking the petition bank to submit a report was in compliance sub-section (3) of Section 178 of the Srama 2006 and this provision of law is a new insertions in the Srama Ain and no other similar provision was available in the repealed law i.e. Industrial Relation Ordinance 1969. This aspect ase according to the learned Advocate for petitioner is also a distinguishable feature which makes the 57 DLR (AD) case not applicable, case before us.
7. Mr Ahsanul Karim, submits further that on the basis of a GO Entry lodged by the Human Resources Manager of the petitioner bank, the certificate was sent to the hand writing expert for opinion and upon investigation the hand writing expert filed report disclosing that the signature available in the certificate as produced by the respondent No. 4 before the respondent No.3 and referred to the petitioner bank, was a forged one and the signature was an outcome of forgery, a copy of the said report has been forwarded to the Human Resources Manager of the petitioner bank and this aspect of the case having been in the special knowledge of the petitioner he ought to have been impleaded as a party before the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the case completely and effectually but this aspect of the case has not been considered by any of the courts below.
