Interim Report - REPORT_NO364, June 2012

1. 309. The Committee last examined this case on its merits at its June 2011 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 360th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 311th Session (June 2011), paras 263–290].
2. 310. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 3 May 2012.
3. 311. Bangladesh has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 312. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 360th Report, para. 290]:
   • (a) The Committee considers that the Central Executive Committee (Makhon Lal Karmaker – Ramjovan Koiry’s panel) should be able to exercise its functions without delay and be recognized by the Government pending any decision by the judicial authorities. The Committee urgently requests the Government to provide a copy of any ruling handed down following the decision of the High Court and to keep it informed of any ruling handed down by the Labour Court in the abovementioned case, as well as to provide any additional information in this regard.
   • (b) Considering the contradictory versions of the complainant and the report of the Deputy Director of Labour, Srimongal, with regard to the violent suppression of the demonstration to protest against interference in union elections on 20 December 2009 in various places of Moulvibazar District and during another demonstration held in the Moulvibazar District, and considering the factual discrepancies between the conclusions of the Deputy Director of Labour and the allegations and newspaper clippings provided by the complainant in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to conduct a thorough and independent investigation immediately into all the allegations of violent suppression of the demonstration and to keep it informed in this regard.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 313. In its communication dated 3 May 2012, the Government mainly reiterates its previous indications concerning the election of the Central Executive Committee of the BCSU that was held on 26 October 2008, which according to the Government has not obtained the confidence of the workers who have requested the Department of Labour to form an ad hoc committee until further election, claiming that the BCSU Central Working Committee was autocratic and engaged in activities against the interest of the workers. The Government adds that the elected committee filed a case against the ad hoc committee in the Labour Court and that subsequently, both parties lodged writ petitions against each other in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court and Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for justice which are pending for hearing.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 314. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of interference by the authorities in the election of officers to the BCSU’s Central Executive Committee, as well as the violent suppression of demonstrations organized to protest this interference. It observes that the Government’s observations refer to the elections of the BCSU’s Central Executive Committee and the Central Working Committee (recommendation (a)) but regrets that it does not provide any information concerning the violent suppression of demonstrations organized to protest against this interference (recommendation (b)).
2. 315. With regard to recommendation (a), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the elected committee filed a case against the ad hoc committee in the Labour Court and that subsequently, both parties (the elected committee and the ad hoc committee) lodged writ petitions against each other in the High Court Division of the Supreme Court and Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for Justice which are pending for hearing. In this regard, the Committee once again reiterates that it considers that the Central Executive Committee (Makhon Lal Karmaker – Ramjovan Koiry’s panel) should be able to exercise its functions without delay and be recognized by the Government pending any decision by the judicial authorities and requests the Government to provide a copy of the rulings by the High Court Division of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court as soon as they are handed down (with regard to the writ petitions filed by both parties). It once again urgently requests the Government to keep it informed of any ruling handed down by the Labour Court following the decision of the High Court in the abovementioned case.
3. 316. With regard to recommendation (b), noting with regret that no information was provided by the Government, the Committee must therefore reiterate its previous recommendation.