High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Sajjad Al Rana v Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Kakrail, Dhaka and others
Writ Petition 345/2022 · Decided 5 May 2026
The petitioner joined the respondent institution as a tapper in 1997 and worked continuously. In 2007 he applied unsuccessfully to be made permanent, and later applied to the Labour Court, Chittagong, which on 19.09.2019 directed that he be treated as permanent from the end of his three-month probationary period with all arrear benefits. On appeal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal accepted that he was permanent but limited his benefits to the period from 20.07.2017 to the date of the Labour Court's judgment. No one appeared for the respondents in the writ proceedings. The High Court Division held that, under section 4(7) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, a worker becomes permanent by operation of law on completing the probationary period, and that the Appellate Tribunal had misread the evidence by treating his application as made in 2017 rather than on 18.10.2007, without displacing the Labour Court's reasons. The Rule was made absolute and the respondents were directed to provide all benefits under the Labour Court's order within 60 days.
- Q1
Whether a rubber tapper who had worked continuously since 1997 became a permanent worker on completing the probationary period, entitling him to benefits from that date.
- Q2
Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal lawfully restricted his benefits to the period from 20.07.2017 to 19.09.2019.
- Under section 4(7) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, a worker acquires permanent status by operation of law on completing the prescribed probationary period, unless terminated in accordance with law.
- Workers who serve continuously for years beyond the three-month probationary period acquire a right to be made permanent, as held in 65 DLR (AD) 116.
- The Labour Appellate Tribunal misread the evidence by treating the worker's application for permanence as made on 20.07.2017 instead of 18.10.2007, and modified the Labour Court's order without addressing its reasons.
- The Appellate Tribunal's judgment was declared to have no legal effect and the respondents were directed to provide all service benefits under the Labour Court's judgment of 19.09.2019 within 60 days.
upon completion of the prescribed probationary period, an employee acquires the status of a permanent worker by operation of law, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with law.
In the court’s own words.
Writ Petition 345/2022, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 11 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.
1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
2HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
3WRIT PETITION NO. 345 of 2022
Present
4Mr. Justice K.M. Hafizul Alam
-And-
5Mr. Justice Abdur Rahman
6IN THE MATTER OF:
7An application under Article 102 of the
8Constitution of the People’s Republic of
9Bangladesh
-And-
10IN THE MATTER OF:
11Sajjad Al Rana
…. Petitioner
-versus-
12Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal,
13Kakrail, Dhaka, and others
…. Respondents
14Mr. Md. Abdullah Al Masud, Advocate
….for the petitioner
15None appears
…for the respondents
16Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026 and 22.04.2026
17Date of Judgment: 05.05.2026 A.D.
18Tuesday, 22 Boishak 1433 B.S.
19Abdur Rahman, J:
20This Rule Nisi, at the instance of the petitioner, was issued on an application under Article 102 of the Constitution, challenging the judgment and order dated 31.10.2021 passed by the learned Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka in Appeal No.238 of 2019 arising out of I.R (Labour) Case No.18 of 2017 partially allowing the appeal and thereby decreasing the benefits of the petitioner by modifying the judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Chittagong in I.R (Labour) Case No.18 of 2017 (as contained in Annexure-'D' to the writ petition), to declare as illegal, without jurisdiction, 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.
21The facts leading to the issuance of this Rule Nisi in brief are that: the petitioner was joined in the Respondent 1 institution in 1997 to the post of Tapper and satisfactorily worked there without any interval, and as per the existing labour law, he was supposed to be a permanent worker after 3 months from the date of his joining in his respective post. But the authority was always reluctant to make him permanent in his post. For this reason, he applied to the concerned authority on 18.10.2007, requesting that he would be made permanent in the post of Tapper and granted all the benefits and facilities as
per the provisions of law. But the authority did not respond to his application, and hence he filed an application before the Labour Court, Chittagong, with a prayer to make a direction to the concerned authority to make him permanent employee in service from the date of completion of the 3-month probationary period and give him all the benefits and other facilities as per the prevailing rules and regulations.
22Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, after completing trial, pursuing the application of the petitioner and the written statement of the respondents and other materials on record vide a judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 allow the application of the petitioner and made a direction to the respondents to make the petitioner permanent worker from date of completion of his 3 months probationary period and also allow the petitioner all the arrear benefits and other facilities.
23Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Labour Court, Chittagong, the Respondent 3 appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka.
24Thereafter, the learned Appellate Tribunal after hearing, perusing judgment and order dated 19.09.2019 of the Labour Court and other materials on record partly allowed the appeal vide a judgment and order dated 31.10.2021 and made a
direction to the respondents to provide all the service benefits of the petitioner from 20.07.2017 to 19.09.2019 as a permanent employee within 60 days from the date.
25Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.10.2021 passed by the learned Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, in Appeal No. 238 of 2019, partially allowing the appeal and decreasing the benefits of the writ petitioner, and thereafter, finding no other alternative, he invoked this forum.
26Mr. Md. Abdullah Al Masud, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the writ-petitioner, having served continuously for more than 3 months from the date of appointment as Tapper, attained permanent status by operation of law. But the respondents failed to treat him as a permanent employee and deprived him of the scale of pay and fringed benefits lawfully due to him.
27He further contended that although the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal recognized the petitioner as permanent employee upon completion of the probationary period, it erroneously reduced his benefits due to a misconception of facts and law. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2021, insofar as it reduced the petitioner’s benefits, is illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect.
28Learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2021, so far it relates to partially allowing the appeal, decreased the benefits that have been passed arbitrarily, without exercising the judicial mind, which is an illegal and colorable exercise of power, and as such the same is liable to be declared illegal and without jurisdiction and is of no legal effect.
29No one appears on behalf of the respondents.
30However, on perusal of Annexure-C, we find that earlier the respondents-appellants as defendants contested the case by filing a written statement denying the material allegation of the plaint made in I.R case no. 18 of 2017, stating inter alia- (i) that the case is not maintainable in the present form and manner. The case is also barred by limitation, principles of estoppels and waiver, etc., and the case is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006; (ii) the case is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Forest Industries Development Corporation; (iii) the 1st party/respondent was appointed as tapper in the Garden on a contractual basis. As per the definition of labour under section 4(1) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, the 1st party would not be treated as labour. The service of the employee, i.e., the 1st party/respondent, is governed by the Public Management Co-ordination Ordinance
1985; (iv) the 2nd party trained the 1st party for tapping the rubber tree. After getting training, 1st party/respondent executed an agreement with 2nd parties with some terms and conditions. As per agreement clause 8, the 1st party/respondent has no right to claim himself as a regular worker of Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation, and the 2nd party has not issued any appointment letter to the 1st party/respondent without selection of a training letter as a tapper. Accordingly, these types of tappers are serving on a contractual basis throughout the country since their joining of the work, and hence their claim to be a permanent worker is not tenable in law; (v) the 1st party/respondent was appointed as a tapper in the Garden on a contractual basis as per the agreement between 1st parties and 2nd parties. As per clause 7 of the said contract agreement, the 1st party could not claim to be a permanent worker, and hence his claim to be a permanent worker is not tenable in law. Moreover, as per clause 3 of the said agreement, the 1st party failed to fulfil its target of production, and (vi) the 1st party/respondent is contractual tapper and he is not the worker as per the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, so 1st party/respondent has no locus standi to file the case and as such the case is liable to be summarily rejected as not tenable in law.
31We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner paying careful attention. We also perused the writ petition as well as the documents appended thereto. It is found that the petitioner joined the service in 1997 to the post of Tapper on temporary basis. Thereafter he completed his training period, and on 18.10.2007 he applied to the pertinent authority for making his job permanent. On perusal of the deposition of the P.W.1 it is found that he deposed before the Labour Court supporting his claim and the dependents on the other hand did not barren any of his claim through the cross-examination. Conversely, the dependent No.1 produced one witness, Md. Robiur Rahman as D.W.1, who deposed as under: ” াথ প িতপে র িনেয়া জত িমক। িতপ াথ েক িনেয়াগদােনর সময় কান িনেয়াগপ দনিন। ২০০৬ সেনর বাংলােদশ ম আইেনর ৪ ধারা মেত াথ প িমক বেল গন# নন িবধায় এ আদালেত মামলা করার অিধকারী নন। াথ পে র মামলা তামািদেত বািরত। cÖwZcÿ কেতক শত'মেত াথ েক চ) *িভি,ক ট#াপার পেদ িনেয়াগ িদেয়েছন। াথ র কাযকলাপ
' িতপে র সে0াষজনক িছল না।
32াথ র মামলা কারণিবহীন। াথ প এ মামলায় াথ ত মেত কান িতকার াপক নন িবধায় এ মামলা4ট খািরেজর আেদশ াথনা
' কেরন।
33াথ র চাকুরী 7ায়ীকরেনর জন# িতপে র বরাবের কান আেবদন কেরনিন এবং 7ায়ী হওয়ার দাবী কেরনিন।“
On the other hand, during cross-examination he stated that: “ াথ পে র জরায় D.W(1) মা: রিবউর রহমান বেলন য, িতিন এ মামলার িবষয়ব< স=েক' অবগত আেছন। াথ এ মামলায় িতপে র িব>ে? িক িক িতকার াথনা
' কেরেছন তা তার জানা নই। াথ
34িতপে র িত@ােন এখেনা কমরত
' আেছন। াথ ১৯৯৭ ইং সন হেত
35কমরত ' আেছন। িতপ াথ র চাকুরী 7ায়ী কেরনিন। াথ র চাকুরী চ) *িভি,ক িবধায় তার চাকুরী 7ায়ী করা হয়িন। িতপে র িত@ােন ম আইনমেত িমকেদর চাকুরীর কাযDম
' পিরচািলত হয়। িতপ ম
36আইেনর িবধান অনুসরণ না কেরই াথ র চাকুরী 7ায়ী না করা সত# নয়। াথ র চাকুরী িনয়িমতকরেনর জন# াথ র ১৮/১০/২০০৭ ইং তািরেখর আেবদনপত্র িতপ Gহণ কেরেছন িকনা তা তার জানা নই।“
37From the above facts and circumstances it is manifested that the petitioner worked in the institution of the respondent 1 since 1997 and the defendant 1 admitted that “cÖv_©x cÖwZc‡ÿi cÖwZôv‡b GLbI Kg©iZ Av‡Qb|“, and it is also reveal from the record that the petitioner has submitted application on 18.10.2007 for making his post permanent but the learned Appellate Tribunal observed that: “িবI িJতীয় ম আদালেতর চয়ারম#ান থমপ েক 7ায়ী িমক িহেসেব য িস?া0 দান কেরেছন তা আংিশক স4ঠক ও আইনসLত মেম ' গণ# হেলও স ম আদালেত ২০.০৭.২০১৭ইং তািরেখর পূেব ' কান িতকার াথনা
' কেরনিন। কােজই
38াথ 7ায়ী িমক গণ# হেলও ২০.০৭.২০১৭ইং তািরখ হেত রায় চােরর তািরখ ১৯.০৯.২০১৯ইং পয0
' সমেয় তােক 7ায়ী িমক িহেসেব তার
39াপ# বতন ও ভাতািদ পেত হকদার।”, which indicates that the learned Appellate Tribunal admitted the petitioner as permanent employee but caused misreading on point of the submission of application of the petitioner before his authority on 20.07.2017 instead of 18.10.2007. However, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal rightly referred to a decision of our Appex Court i.e 65 DLR (AD) 116 which as follows: Employment of Labour (Standing Order) Act, 1965, Section 4 (2)-
40“Though the petitioners were appointed as casual workers on a 'no work no pay’ basis against the permanent posts initially for 90 days, because of their continuous services therein for 7/8 years without any gap, and thus, they having completed the period of probation of three months acquired a right to be permanent in their respective posts."
41Considering the above facts and circumstances, as well as proposition of law, we believe that the petitioner admittedly joined the service in the year 1997 and continued therein for more than 3 months as a temporary employee. However, despite completion of the statutory probationary period, the concerned authority did not take any effective step to regularize or confirm
him in the post of Tapper. It further transpires from the materials on record that the provision of section 4(7) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, clearly postulates that upon completion of the prescribed probationary period, an employee acquires the status of a permanent worker by operation of law, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with law. Therefore, the continued failure of the authority to accord the petitioner permanent status and consequential service benefits appears to be contrary to the spirit and mandate of the aforesaid statutory provision.
42Considering the above facts and circumstances as well as the proposition of law, we are constrained to hold that the learned Labour Court, Chattogram has not committed any illegality. But the learned Appellate Court, by its Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2021, passed by the learned Member, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka, in Labour Appeal No. 238 of 2019 arising out of I. R (Labour) Case No. 18 of 2017, modifying the Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2029 passed by the Labour Court, Chattogram, committed illegality misreading of evidence on the face of the record, and without controverting the reasons given by the learned Labour Court, Chattogram, and as such said judgment and order is considered as having no legal effect
in the eyes of law. Thereby, we find merit in the Rule; accordingly, the Rule is made Absolute.
43There is no order as to costs.
44However, the respondents are hereby directed to provide all the service benefits and connecting facilities of service of the petitioner as per the judgment and order dated 19.09.2019, passed by the learned Labour Court, Chittagong, in I.R (Labour) Case No.18 of 2017, within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment, failing which the law will come into effect.
45The office is directed to communicate this judgment to the learned Labour Court Chattogram forthwith.
46Send down the subordinate Court’s Record (SCR), if any.
( Abdur Rahman, J )
47K.M. Hafizul Alam, J:
I agree.
(K.M. Hafizul Alam, J )
Related summaries.
From the record to your case.
Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.
- Supreme Court practice in BangladeshSlips, mentioning, cause lists and appearances→
- Case JourneysHow a case moves through the courts, step by step→
- Limitation and appeal deadline calculatorKnow your last day to file→
- Curative petitions in BangladeshFinality, article 104 and the case for reform→
- Constitution guideEvery article and amendment, animated→
- Bangladesh legal glossaryBangla and English legal terms, explained→
