Definitive Report - REPORT_NO234, June 1984

1. 66. The World Federation of Teachers' Unions (FISE) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Bangladesh in a communication dated 7 November 1983. The Government replied in communications dated 16 February and 23 April 1984.
2. 67. Bangladesh has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 68. In its communication of 7 November 1983, the FISE alleges the imprisonment, for many months, of Professor Shareeful Islam, Secretary-General of the Bangladesh College Teachers' Association (BCTA), charged by the Martial Law Court with having participated in an informal meeting of teachers of the association at the BCTA headquarters. According to the FISE, "already sentenced without right of appeal to one year's imprisonment, Professor Shareeful Islam has again been judged by the Special Tribunal for this supposed offence".

B. The Government's reply

1. 69. In its communication of 16 February 1984, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Manpower has examined this case, finding that Professor Shareeful Islam, Secretary-General of the Bangladesh College Teachers' Association, was sentenced by the competent court to "rigorous imprisonment" for one year for misappropriation of funds, and not for participating in an informal meeting of the BCTA as was alleged by the complainant. In its communication of 23 April 1984, the Government states that Mr. Islam has since been released.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 70. The Committee notes that this case concerns the sentencing of a leader of the Bangladesh college teachers' trade union to one year's imprisonment. It notes, in particular, that the reasons given for the imprisonment are directly contradictory, the complainant organisation alleging that it was due to Mr. Shareeful Islam's participation in an informal meeting of teachers at his union's headquarters and the Government stating that it was on the ground of misappropriation of funds. The Government does not specify whether these were trade union or other funds, but does indicate that this trade union leader has subsequently been released.
2. 71. The Committee notes the conflicting nature of the complainant's version of the facts and that of the Government and, in the absence of more detailed information, would recall in general that in cases such as this involving the arrest, detention or sentencing of a trade union official, it has always taken the view that individuals have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. Moreover, it has considered that it was incumbent upon the government to show that the measures that were taken were in no way occasioned by the trade union activities of the individual concerned. [See, for example, 103rd Report, Case No. 536 (Gabon), para. 292; 112th Report, Case No. 569 (Chad), para. 185.]
3. 72. From the information at its disposal, the Committee notes that section 3(c) of the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance No. XXIII, amended in 1970, 1980 and 1982, guarantees to trade union organisations the right to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, which presumably includes the right to participate in trade union meetings on union premises. It further notes that participation in certain assemblies is considered illegal (and therefore subject to imprisonment) under 145 and 152 of the 1980 Penal Code No. XLV, relating respectively to joining or continuing to participate in an unlawful assembly which has been ordered to disperse, and joining or continuing to participate in any assembly which, being likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, has been ordered to disperse.
4. 73. Nevertheless, in the present case, in view of the fact that the trade union leader in question has been released, apparently before the expiry of his prison sentence, the Committee considers that this case does not require more detailed examination.