Interim Report - Report No 368, June 2013

1. 190. The Committee last examined this case on its merits at its May–June 2012 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 364th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 315th Session (June 2012), paras 309–317].
2. 191. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 28 November 2012.
3. 192. 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. 193. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 364th Report, para. 317]:
   • (a) Recalling that it has already considered 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 requests the Government to provide a copy of the rulings made by the High Court Division of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (with regard to the writ petitions filed by both parties) as soon as they are handed down. It once again urgently requests the Government to provide a copy of any ruling handed down by the Labour Court following the decision of the High Court in the abovementioned case.
   • (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 once again requests the Government to conduct a thorough and independent investigation immediately into all the allegations of violent suppression of the demonstrations and to keep it informed in this regard.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 194. In its communication dated 28 November 2012, the Government recapitulates the past events including: (i) the alleged no confidence vote on 12 July 2009 of the members of the Bangladesh Cha-Sramik Union (BCSU) in the Central Executive Committee elected on 26 October 2008 (Makhon Lai Karmaker – Ramvajan Koiry’s panel); (ii) the subsequent set-up by the Director of Labour, in the interest of the tea workers, of an ad-hoc committee of 30 members, headed by Mr Bijoy Bunarjee to run their activities for an interim period pending new elections of the Central Executive Committee within 120 days as per the BCSU’s constitution; (iii) the filing by the aggrieved executive committee of a case with the Labour Court; (iv) the Labour Court’s order to suspend the decision of the Director of Labour to create the ad hoc committee; and (v) the writ petition by the ad hoc committee against this order, followed by the High Court’s decision to stay the order of the Labour Court for six months. In addition, the Government indicates that: (i) the ad hoc committee has been running its activities as per the direction of the court; (ii) meanwhile, the Supreme Court passed an order with a direction not to hold any election of the union until disposal of the case before the Labour Court (No. 2 of 2010); and (iii) the Labour Court had also directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
2. 195. Regarding the violent suppression of demonstrations, the Government indicates that the Department of Labour investigated the matter, and that the Deputy Director of Labour stated in his report that he could not find any evidence of violent suppression, and that there was no case recorded at the local police station in this regard.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 196. 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.
2. 197. With regard to recommendation (a), the Committee notes that the Government mainly reiterates its previous observations. It notes in particular the Government’s statement that: (i) the ad hoc committee has been running its activities as per the direction of the High Court; (ii) the Supreme Court has meanwhile passed an order with a direction not to hold any election of the union until disposal of the case before the Labour Court (No. 2 of 2010); and (iii) the Labour Court had also directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
3. 198. The Committee cannot but regret that the ad hoc committee has now been operating for almost five years in spite of the election (albeit allegedly challenged) of the BCSU Central Executive Committee on 26 October 2008. In a previous examination of the case, the Committee has already recalled the importance it attaches to the principle that, in order to avoid the danger of serious limitation on the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom, complaints brought before labour courts by an administrative authority challenging the results of trade union elections should not – pending the final outcome of the judicial proceedings – have the effect of suspending the validity of such elections. The Committee also reiterates that measures taken by the administrative authorities when election results are challenged run the risk of being arbitrary, and that the removal by the Government of trade union leaders from office is a serious infringement of the free exercise of trade union rights [see Case No. 2765 (Bangladesh), 360th Report, paras 286 and 287; and Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 441, 440 and 444]. Therefore the Committee expects that the Government will take measures to recognize the elected Central Executive Committee (Makhon Lal Karmaker – Ramjovan Koiry’s panel) without delay and will ensure that it is able to effectively exercise its functions pending any decision by the judicial authorities. With regard to the latter, in view of the fact that three years have elapsed since the filing of the case and that no new elections may be held before the resolution of the case pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order, the Committee recalls that justice delayed is justice denied and firmly trusts that the Labour Court will hand down its decision on the abovementioned case without delay. It once again requests the Government to provide, as soon as they are handed down, a copy of the rulings of the Labour Court, as well as of the High Court Division and Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (with regard to the writ petitions filed by both parties). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
4. 199. With regard to recommendation (b), the Committee notes that the Government merely reiterates its statement that the Department of Labour investigated the matter, and that the Deputy Director of Labour stated that he could not find any evidence of violent suppression, and that there was no case recorded at the local police station in this regard.
5. 200. The Committee wishes generally to recall the fundamental principle that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstrations to defend their occupational interests [see Digest, op. cit., para. 133]. The use of the forces of order during trade union demonstrations should be limited to cases of genuine necessity. In cases in which the dispersal of public meetings by the police has involved loss of life or serious injury, the Committee has attached special importance to the circumstances being fully investigated immediately through an independent inquiry and to a regular legal procedure being followed to determine the justification for the action taken by the police and to determine responsibilities [see Digest, op. cit., paras 49 and 150]. In this regard, the Committee recalls its previous conclusion noting the existence of factual discrepancies between, on the one side, the findings of the Deputy Director of Labour and, on the other side, the allegations made, and the newspaper clippings provided, by the complainant with regard to the violent suppression of the demonstration to protest against interference in the union elections on 20 December 2009 in various places of Moulvibazar District and during another demonstration held in the same district. In view of the contradictory versions of the complainant and the report of the Deputy Director of Labour, Srimongal, the Committee considers that the setting up of an independent inquiry (conferred upon an independent body and not the government) would be a particularly appropriate method of fully ascertaining the facts and, if need be, determining responsibilities, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such actions. The Committee therefore expects that the Government will ensure a thorough and independent investigation into all the allegations of violent suppression of demonstrations, and urges the Government to keep it informed in this regard.