social-media Archives - Protect Yunus

In the spirit of transparency, and in our effort to inform and engage legal experts and fair-minded citizens in the travesty of justice being perpetrated against Professor Yunus and his colleagues, we have translated the entire judgment/verdict against him that was handed down on January 1, 2024 into English. Preceding that is a short summary and analysis of the verdict. Some of the tables in the verdict have not transferred perfectly, but each and every word has been translated and should be understandable, despite the formatting issues, which we will try to resolve in order to make this even more clear and accessible.

Analysis of the case against Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Mr. Ashraful Hasan, Mrs. Nurjahan Begum and Mr. M. Shahjahan

Sheikh Merina Sultana, judge of the 3^rd Labour Court, Dhaka, issued an 84-page judgment on 1 January 2024 in the case against Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Mr. Ashraful Hasan, Mrs. Nurjahan Begum and Mr. M. Shahjahan.The complainant in the case was S. M. Arifuzzaman, who was a Labour Inspector under the Department of Inspection of Factories and Establishments, Dhaka (a government office). Mr. Arifuzzaman passed away after filing the case and was substituted by another Labour Inspector, Mr. Toriqul Islam, who also testified as prosecution witness no.1. There were three other prosecution witnesses and all of them were Labour Inspectors employed by the government.
The counsel for the complaintant were two Senior Advocates, Mr. Korshed Alam Khan and Mr. Syed Hayder Ali, who were engaged specially for this case. These counsel do not appear before the Labour Court ordinarily, rather Mr. Khan regularly represents the Anti-Corruption Commission and Mr. Ali is a prosecutor in the International Crimes Tribunal.
The case was filed by the complainant under Section 303(e) and 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006. Section 303(e) provides that if any person wilfully fails or neglects to maintain or send any plan, list, record, register, information, report or other document required to be maintained or send under the Act or any rules, regulations or schemes, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 (six) months, or with fine which may extend to 5,000 (five thousand) Taka, or with both. According to Section 307, if any person contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any rules, regulations or schemes, and if no other penalty is provided therein for such contravention or failure, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) Taka, which is equal to US$228.
The judgment states that the case was filed by the Labour Inspector following his visits to the office Grameen Telecom on multiple occasions. There is no finding or observation in the judgment nor in the witness testimony to the effect that any of the inspection or case was initiated pursuant to any complaint from any employee of Grameen Telecom. None of the employees were called as a witness in the case.
The judgment notes that in response to the substantive allegations brought by the Labour Inspector, Grameen Telecom issued specific replies and pointed out how the company was in effect providing all applicable employment benefits to the employees as per the Bangladesh Labour Act, even though the company had its own service rules. For example, the judgment notes that according to Grameen Telecom, the company provides 30 days of annual leave, whereas the Bangladesh Labour Act requires only 14 days of annual leave; thus, the company provides more benefits than is required. However, the court did not take that into consideration rather arrived at a finding that the accused parties did not comply with the Labour Act.
The judgment has reproduced the letters issued by the Labour Inspector’s to Grameen Telecom and Grameen Telecom’s replies to each of the allegations. For instance, in response to the allegation on absence of a Workers’ Profit Participation Fund, the company explained in its response that the company’s position was that since it was a non-for-profit company, its profit was not eligible for distribution, and that the issue was subject-matter of another set of litigations that are pending before the Labour Court. The company assured that it would take necessary steps on the basis of the final decision in those litigations, and that this position had already been communicated to the government.
However, the Labour Court did not find any of Grameen Telecom’s response to be worthy of consideration, rather simply endorsed the Labour Inspector’s position that none of the replies was satisfactory. The Court convicted the accused persons of all the accusations that were brought against them and held that all the allegations were proved beyond any doubt. The Court handed out the maximum period of imprisonment and the maximum amounts of fines that could be ordered against the accused persons under Section 303(e). Under Section 307, the Court ordered the maximum amounts of fines that could be ordered against the accused persons under that provision.
Without prejudice to the contention that WPPF was inapplicable to Grameen Telecom, Grameen Telecom, in fact, settled the WPPF claim of the employees in separate proceedings even before the judgment of the Labour Court. Furthermore, Professor Muhammad Yunus and other non-executive directors, who have been convicted in these proceedings, did not have any involvement in the day-to-day management of the Company. It is very unusual for Labour Court to impose custodial sentence on such non-executive directors, and also given that they did not have any previous conviction.

The Labour Law Judgment, Translated into English, Appears Below:

Form No. (J) 3
Judgment Header
Third Labour Court
Dhaka

Present: Sheikh Marina Sultana
Chairman
(District and Sessions Judge)
Third Labour Court, Dhaka.

Judgment date: 01-01-2024
17 Poush 1430 (Bengali year)

BLA (Penal) Case no.: 228/2021

Section: 303 (E), 307 Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006

Plaintiff (State)
S.M. Arifujjaman
Labour Inspector (General)
Factory and Company Inspection Directorate, Dhaka.
versus
Defendants

Mr. Prof. Dr. Muhammad Yunus – Chairman
Mr. Md. Ashraful Hassan – Managing Director
Mrs. Nurjahan Begum – Director
Mr. Md. Shahjahan – Director
Grameen Telecom
Grameen Bank Bhavan, Plot 6, Borobag, Mirpur
P.S: Mirpur, District: Dhaka-1216.
Md. Khorshed Alam Khan, Learned Senior Advocate
Syyed Haidar Ali, Learned Senior Advocate ——- Representing the Government
Abdullah Al Mamun, Learned Senior Advocate
Khaja Tanveer Ahmed
S.M Mijanur Rahman
Md. Ibrahim —– Representing the Defendants

Judgment

This is a Complaint Case filed under Sections 303 (E) and 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. The plaintiff’s complaint petition in brief is that, the plaintiff is an inspector according to the power given to him by Section 319 (i) under the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, and thus entitled to exercise the power. The plaintiff found the respondents’ company, Grameen Telecom, in violation of the Sections 303 (E) and 307 under the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 during a firsthand inspection on 09/02/2020 and 16/08/2021. During an inspection of the respondents’ company on 09/02/2020, the plaintiff found violations, in addition to other violations, regarding not making the intern labourers/employees permanent after the end of their internship according to law, providing paid annual holidays, encashing holidays and non-payment of cash against holidays to the labourers/employees of the company, not forming the labour participation fund and welfare fund and non-contribution of 5% of the net profit to the two above-mentioned funds and to the fund formed under the Labour Welfare Foundation Act, 2006 in the specific ratio (of 80:10:10) and thus sent a letter, Memo no. 3982/N.M.W/Dhaka dated 01/03/2021 via registered post to the respondents, demanding the rectification of the obtained violations. The reply later provided to the office of the plaintiff by the respondents on 09/03/2020 was not satisfactory. Another letter, Memo no. 7263/N.M.W/Dhaka, dated 19/08/2021 was sent via registered post following another inspection on 16/08/2021 as directed by the higher authorities. But, according to the contents of the above-mentioned letter, the response filed by the respondents after the rectification of the violation of the Section/Act was considered unsatisfactory by the plaintiff and thus finding the respondents disrespectful of the Labour Act, the inspector filed a case in this court on 09/09/2021 against the respondents for violating Sections 4(7)(8), 117, 234 and Act 107, claiming the respondents have committed punishable offence under the Sections 303(E) and 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006.
In lieu of the said complaint by the plaintiff, a summon was issued and duly served. On surrendering to this court on 02/11/21 and 26/04/22 and requesting for bail, the respondents were granted it by the court. Later, on 06/06/2023, the complaint was lodged, according to the Sections 303 (E) and 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, in the presence of the respondents. On reading out and explaining the formed complaint to the respondents, they pleaded innocence and asked for justice.

In order to prove the accusation, the government side produced 04 witnesses and submitted Exhibits-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9. The verbal witnesses produced by the government were questioned by the respondents’ side. At the end of the testimonies of the government’s witnesses, the respondents were examined under the Penal Code 342. The respondents plead innocence and conveyed not to examine the clarifying witness, and submitted the written note and other documents.
The assumptions about the Defence Case derived from the kind of questioning of the government’s witnesses, are:
The plaintiffs are not actively involved in the violations mentioned in the complaint letter, Grameen Telecom appoints labourers according to their own rules of appointment, Grameen Telecom gets the work done from them on the basis of agreement with Grameen phone activity and Nokia phone and the labourer’s term of contract is increased along with the increase in the term of agreement with Grameen phone and Nokia and holidays are approved according to its own terms of employment and labourers are made permanent according to its own terms of appointment in Grameen Telecom and the company’s profits cannot be shared by the not-for-profit company and its members registered under Section 28 of the Grameen Telecom Company Act, 1994. Further, if there is any violation under Sections 4(7) and 4(8), 117, 234, there is a civil remedy for it, then criminal proceedings are not maintainable. The respondents have not violated the provisions of 4(7)(8), 197, 234 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and Rule 107 of the Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015 and the statements of the plaintiffs and the statements of the witnesses are not correct.

Points to be considered

Have the allegations of violation of Rule 117, 234 and Rule 107 according to the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 brought forth by the State against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Are the accused punishable for the violation under the Sections 303 (E) and 307 of the said Act?

Discussion and decision
Points 1 and 2 to be considered are related to each other and are taken together to facilitate discussion and decision-making.
S.M. Arifuzzaman, the plaintiff of the case, died after filing the Labour Inspector (General) case; Tariqul Islam, Labour Inspector (General) gave verbal testimony in place of the original plaintiff as PW-1 on behalf of the plaintiff and Md. Hadiuzzaman, Md. Enamul Haque and Md. Mizanur Rahman gave verbal testimony as PW-2, 3 and 4 respectively and the witnesses were empowered by the Inspector General to show the notification 1 dated 24/1/17 in this regard, Copy of the notice sent to the respondent on 01/03/20 with registered letter – Exhibit 2, the respondent replied on 09/3/20 Copy of the said reply – Exhibit 3. Inspection Checklist Exhibit 4 and signatures of the Inspectors 4 (1), 4 (2), 4 (3), 4 (4), 4 (5), on 19/08/20, original copy of the notice to the respondent company Exhibit 5 and signature of plaintiff 5 (1) in the notice and signature of the new inspector Exhibit 5(2), 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), copy of the respondent’s reply dated 29/08/21 Exhibit 6, complaint petition and signature of plaintiff therein respectively Exhibit 7, 7(1), Office Order of the Inspector General dated 06/07/22 Exhibit 8 and Attested Photocopy of Contractual Appointment Exhibit 9, Attested Photocopy Dr. Deepa Dutta, Assistant Inspector General’s Signature Exhibit 9(1) submitted the marked papers!
Complaints against the accused persons S.M. Arifuzzaman, Labour Inspector, Directorate of General Mills, Factories, Companies, Dhaka, on 09/02/2020 and 16/08/2021 of Grameen Telecom, whose chairman Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus accused no. 1, Managing Director Md. Ashraful Hasan accused no. 2, Director Mrs. Nurjahan Begum accused no. 3, and Director Md. Shahjahan accused no. 4. During the inspection of the directors, the probationary period of the officers/employees of the company has not been made permanent according to the provisions of the law, the officers/employees working in the company have not been given annual leave with wages as per the provisions of the law, leave encashment and cash against leave, labour participation fund and welfare fund have not been formed and 5% of the net profit has not been contributed in the fund formed under the said two funds and the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 (80:10:10). Hence, it was observed that it is a violation of the provisions of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, Bangladesh Labour Rules 2015, by which the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 303 (E) and 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006.

The statements made by the verbal witnesses of the state in their statements and cross-examination are the same which are as follows:
PW-1 mentioned in his statement that the main plaintiff of the case was Labour Inspector (General) S.M. Arifuzzaman. He died on 14/09/21. He was empowered by the Inspector General and sued. In this regard, I have submitted a notification dated 24/01/17. Exhibit 1.
The plaintiff filed the case that “the inspectors shall exercise the powers under Section 31955) mentioned in section 3 of the second page of the notification”.
The plaintiff visited the respondent company Grameen Telecom on 09/02/20. A letter was sent to the respondent by registered post on 01/03/20. I submitted a copy of the notice. Exhibit 2. The respondent replied on 09/03/20. I submitted a copy of the response. Exhibit 3.
The plaintiff again visited Grameen Telecom on 16.08.21. Visit checklist was submitted. Exhibit 4.
On finding violation of the Labour Act during the inspection on 19/08/21, a notice was issued to the respondent company. I submitted the original copy of the notice along with the postal receipt. Exhibit: 5. The notice has the signature of the plaintiff. Signature: Exhibit 5(1). I know the plaintiff’s signature. It is the signature of the plaintiff. Postal receipt Exhibit 5(2), the respondent replied on 29/08/21. I submitted a copy of the response. Exhibit 6.
I submitted a photocopy of the trade license of the respondent company. 5 pp.
The plaintiff filed this suit against the respondents after finding violation of the Labour Acts. This is the petition, the signature of the plaintiff. I know the plaintiff’s signature.
Exhibit 7.7(1)
Needs to be considered.
The Inspector General issued an office order on 06/07/22 and after the death of the plaintiff, I was entrusted with all the activities of this case. I filed an office order. Exhibit 8

The witnesses here stated during the questioning,
“This case has been filed in the 3rd Labour Court on 09/09/21. Four witnesses have been accepted in the case. They are Labour Inspector (General) Md. Hadiuzzaman, Labour Inspector (General) Md. Tariqul Islam, Labour Inspector (General) Md. Enamul Haque, Labour Inspector (General) Md. Mizanur Rahman and I am also a witness. I am included as witness No. 2. The plaintiff was Labour Inspector (General) S.M. Arifuzzaman. I have come today to testify as a plaintiff. As the original plaintiff, S.M. Arifuzzaman died of a heart attack on 14/09/21, the Inspector General’s Office ordered me with responsibility to conduct all the activities of this case. The plaintiff died soon after the case was filed. I was given the responsibility on 06/07/22. It is true that the proceedings of the case continued from the time the plaintiff died until I was given the charge. The truth is that the case is going on for 10 months. I do not know whether anyone else has been appointed before I was given the charge. It is not true that we were not interested in conducting the case for 13 months after the plaintiff died. I did not apply to the court to become plaintiff on the basis of the office order after the plaintiff died. As a plaintiff, I did not file any petition as a witness today and did not inform the court. Not True. Exhibit – 8. The document was fabricated by myself and the Inspector General. Not true. I am not legally the plaintiff in this case. In all the court orders, no order has been issued to add me as a plaintiff. It is not true that the testimony given as a plaintiff is inadmissible or according to the order of the Honourable court, the statement made standing in the witness box without being a plaintiff is legally inadmissible or the Exhibits submitted by the plaintiff are also not admissible to the court as an Exhibit of the plaintiff. It is true in this petition the plaintiff is an inspector empowered under section 319 (1) of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, and it is written on behalf of the state he is entitled to give power in this regard. Section 319 (1) gives the inspector powers only to inspect. True 319 (1) The inspector does not have the power to file a case. True Section 319 (5) gives the power to file a case. The only power given to the Chief Inspector is not true. The Chief Inspector may grant powers. It’s not true, I said it wrong. As per my Exhibit 1 The Inspector-General has the power to file cases in the Labour Court, empower other Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors under him. True The Inspector-General has the power to file case and he may delegate the power. The plaintiff has the capacity to file a case, hence the copy of the notification was not submitted to the court. I first submitted the true notification (Exhibit 1) to the Honourable High Court dated 08/08/23. I filed it in the Quashment. I do not remember the case number. It is true that it has been filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 41984/2023. The plaintiff had no jurisdiction to file the suit as the plaintiff did not submit a copy of the notification (Exhibit 1) at the time of filing the suit. It is not true that the filing of the case is not correct at the time of filing the case or because an affidavit was not filed in the High Court or the office order regarding the responsibility of conducting the case was not given to me.

While testifying on 24/1/17, I submitted the notification which has been marked as Exhibit 1, in that case the objection of the opponent is not acceptable because the said notification has been uploaded on the website.
Earlier copy of the notification was not submitted before the Court.
It is true that the Court is outside our administrative system.
After the death of the plaintiff, by the order dated 6/7/22 responsibility was given to me, the office order which is identified as the Exhibit 8, in that matter objection of the respondent is not acceptable.
The first allegation of the plaintiff is violation of Section 4(7)(8) of the Labour Act is not to make the workers /employees of the establishment permanent in accordance with the provisions of the law at the end of probationary period.
The second allegation is violation of Section 117 and Rule 107 that the workers /employees are not given annual leave with wages, leave encashment and cash against leave as per the provisions of the law.
The third allegation is violation of Section 234 that the Workers’ Participation Fund and Welfare Fund has not been formed and 5% of the net profit is not deposited in the said Leave Fund and the Workers Welfare Foundation as per Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10)!
It is true that, in the petition, the defendants do not have any design, list, registered documents; reports or other petition documents are not preserved purposefully or failed to submit or misrepresented as per the Labour Act or rules; such allegation is not mentioned.
But I sought justice according to 303(3). It is not true that I wanted justice for allegations which were not made. The plaintiff did not sue on his own capacity, it was done on behalf of the Department of Factories.
The defendants in the case are No. 1 Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus (Chairman), No. 2 Managing Director Mr. Mohammad Ashraful Hasan, No. 3 Director Mrs. Nurjahan Begum, No. 4 Director Md. Shahjahan, respectably all of them Chairman, Managing Directors and Directors of Grameen Telecom. Grameen Telecom is an organization. My complaint against the company/organization is true. It is true that Grameen Telecom has not been accused separately.
I have accused the ones who run the company/organization. I have done the Masters. I have an understanding of the Labour Acts and Labour Regulations.
I know about the organization and the company. I have a clear idea about the structure of Grameen Telecom. It is true that that any company/organization may have its own set of regulations, subject to the approval of the Inspector General.

It is true that the defendant has to apply for sanction. It is true that the petition must be submitted with the necessary documents including Memorandum of Articles and Associations. It is true that the respondent has sent its own recruitment rules regarding the appointment of Grameen Telecom employees to the office of the Inspector General on 28/02/18 for approval which we came to know through the reply of the respondent dated 9/03/20. I cannot say whether the Inspector General has taken action according to the Labour Act in response to the petition of the respondent. That is not my department. I have come today to testify, with the permission of the Inspector General. I have been asked to testify about the allegations. Exhibit 3 said nothing separately. I, being the plaintiff due to the death of the plaintiff, being empowered to testify, submitted Exhibit 3 at the time of testimony. In the action taken by the respondent on 01/03/20, no 1 thereof, in the action taken on 28/02/18 I did not submit the letter given by the respondent to the Inspector General, the copy of which was said to be “copy of the letter attached”. In column 3 of Grameen Telecom’s reply to 09/03/20, it was written that according to the rules of the organization, the Telecom employees were given appointment letter (sample attached) and identity card with photo (sample attached). It is true that the said attached sample is not submitted to the Court. Section 4 of the True response has already been written in the service book of the employees as per the rules (sample attached). It is true that the sample is not submitted. In point 5, the daily attendance of the employees is collected through the attendance software of the automated system (sample attached) and using the attendance book. It is written that overtime sheets are used for drivers and messengers (sample attached). The sample was not submitted to the court, true. True that in section 6 of the reply, after completing the probationary period, the employees are entitled to earned leave and enjoy self-paid leave if necessary. The rest of the leave is encashed every three years according to the rules of the organization. It is written that leave encashment information is stored (sample attached). I did not submit samples, true. It is true that I went to Grameen Telecom as an inspector. I went a total of 2 times. The inspection checklist has to be filled up during the inspection, true. First visit on 09/02/20, true. The checklist was made on that date. Due to the death of the plaintiff, there is no checklist for that date. Therefore, I could not submit it. The checklist was signed by myself and my colleague Sapna Rani. The true checklist is a prescribed form from the Ministry of Labour and Employment. We fill the form as labour inspectors to inspect Factories and Establishments. It is written on the second page of Exhibit 4, that the manpower is 61 men, 06 women, total 67, true. It is written permanently at the top in this column, true. That is where I filled up. If the defendant wants a copy of the checklist, I will give him a copy, where our signature is. Exhibit 4. In the case of A.S.M. Arifuzzaman, the signature of the plaintiff, Md. Hadiuzzaman, Mizanur Rahman, Md. Tariqul Islam (myself) and Md. Enamul Haque.

The checklist was written on 16/08/21. The seal of the original plaintiff SM Arifuzzaman is given. Signed by Md. Nazmul Islam, Managing Director, Grameen Telecom, Grameen Bank Complex, Mirpur-2, Dhaka and Shahidul Ferdous, Nazia Afrin (GDL) on behalf of Grameen Telecom. That Grameen Telecom’s round seal is given in the checklist given to the respondent in the last paragraph, is not true. S.M. Arifuzzaman signed the checklist given to the respondent, true. It is true that there is no signature of anyone except S.M. Arifuzzaman. It is not true that fraud has been committed to trap the Nobel Laureate Dr. Mohammad Yunus and others. Exhibit: 4 A copy with the signature of only S.M. Arifuzzaman has been provided to the defendants because the respondent took it quickly before the work was completed. It is true that that the checklist has the signature of Arifuzzaman. Later, Arifuzzaman put the seal, true. It is not true that we have forged the checklist to trap Dr. Md. Yunus or we will be punished for it.
The company is registered according to the trade license on the petition of the person in the name of the organization. It is true that Section 312 deals with offences committed by companies in Labour Acts. True that if the company commits an offence, its directors, partners and other representatives, who are actively involved in the management of the company, are deemed to have committed the crime. Section 336 of the Act provides for penalty in case of failure of the Board of Trustees with respect to contribution and welfare funds. This suit has been filed for the crime of the person. The culprits are No. 1 Chairman of Grameen Telecom Dr. Mohammad Yunus, No. 2 Mr. Md. Ashraful Hasan, No. 3 Mrs. Nurjahan Begum, No. 4, Dr. Md. Shahjahan. There seem to be 12 or 13 directors of the organization as per the article of memorandum. Out of the four, the rest were not charged. Out of 12/13 people, Chairman Dr. Muhammad Yunus, Managing Director and 2 Directors have been chosen as accused. 2 directors have been accused and not the other directors. Because their names came up during the checklist. We filled out the checklist form. Grameen Telecom did not. True that Md. Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director is written on the first page of the checklist under number 2. True that the 5th page of the Checklist has the signature of Mr. Nazmul Islam as Managing Director. According to the trade license of the company, the name of Nazmul Islam has been changed to Md. Ashraful Hasan as Managing Director. Hence, Ashraful Hasan has been made an accused as the managing director.

Amendment in Trade License is written on 24/12/20. It is true that I have mentioned change in name of the managing director instead of change in name of the taxpayer. Nazmul Islam signed as managing director and accused Ashraful Islam as managing director. According to the information of the organization authorities, the name of Md. Ashraful Hasan has been written as the Managing Director. The organization has acknowledged this by signing the respondent checklist. Those whose signatures are on the checklist, give us the names on behalf of the organization. Nazmul Hasan gave us the information of the checklist. I do not know why he himself signed as managing director. It is not true that I have accused Mr. Ashraful Hasan as the Managing Director since he is close to Dr. Yunus.
I do not know whether Mrs. Nurjahan Begum is 70 years old. I did not see her before she was accused. I do not know whether the elderly Md. Shahjahan is paralyzed. I did not see him before filing the case. The organization authorities named the two people while making the checklist. We did not write any letter to know who the director is and who is the chairman. Mr. Nazmul Islam did not give us any letter telling us who the chairman is. Md. Nazmul Islam, Shahidul Nazia Ferdous, Nazia Afrin have named the chairman and directors. True that I have the names of the directors as per the Article of Memorandum. Despite the name in the Articles of Memorandum, the name of someone cannot be included as a responsible person based on the words of others, it is not true. Because the paper they gave us could be corrected, we took the names from them. The managing director has not given any letter that the names of the board of directors have been changed or may be changed. I have made accused in the checklist, signed as managing director and claimed that I recognize Ashraful Hasan as the managing director. Because Nazmul Islam has signed page 5 of the checklist and admitted that all the information in the checklist is correct. True that the signature of the owners and inspectors is required after preparation of checklist, It is not true that the signature of the owner and inspector is mandatory. Signature of the owner is mandatory. Then, it is mandatory for both parties to sign the checklist. It is not true that Nazmul Islam signed the checklist on the basis of being the managing director. On page 5 of the checklist, the managing director is not supposed to sign in place of myself and signature of the informant on behalf of the management. Although I know that Ashraful Hasan is the Chairman of Grameen Telecom, it is not true that I have purposefully shown Mr. Ashraful Hasan as the Managing Director with the intention of showing him involved with Grameen Telecom.

It is not true that Mrs. Nurjahan Begum and Mr. M. Shahjahan Managing Directors of Grameen Bank organization, were the only Nobel Laureate of Bangladesh and they served as consultants on the rank of directors of Grameen Telecom in their spare time but according to the Labour Act they are not associated with this organization or I have purposefully included them as directors in this case. Because according to the information received from the authorities of the organization, I have included them. It is true Dr. Muhammad Yunus is the Chairman of Grameen Telecom. It is true that the chairman is responsible to preside over board meetings. I have not submitted any paper in regards to Dr. Mohd Yunus being actively involved in any work of Grameen Telecom. It is not true that Dr. Mohammad Yunus is the honorary chairman of Grameen Telecom or he is responsible for guiding only Grameen Telecom or Grameen Telecom is a non-profit organization which is covered under Section 28 of the Companies Act. It is not true that the Memorandum of Articles of the Company is to be submitted to the Department of Mills and Factories for its identity. True that mills factories and inspection organizations being government organizations, all companies have to submit their memorandum of articles. However, not all organizations have to submit. It is not true that I filed this case at the instigation of those who do not like Dr. Mohammad Yunus. Ashraful Hasan, Mrs. Nurjahan Begum, Mr. M Shahjahan are very close to Dr. Muhammad Yunus, so I have made them accused in this case or none of the 14 accused are involved in any work of Grameen Telecom or I have written their names in the checklist excluding the real active directors for the purpose of conspiracy against them or if Grameen Telecom was really guilty, then I would definitely have filed a case or checklist against Grameen Telecom and its Managing Director, Mr. Mohammad Nazmul Islam. As it is clearly evident from the checklist that Dr. Muhammad Yunus, and 3 others are our targets. According to the checklist, Grameen Telecom has not committed any crime, so I and we witnesses have submitted the checklist fraudulently to the court with the intention of humiliating them by tampering with the checklist
It is true that the address of Grameen Telecom written in the checklist was not the same at the time of inspection, but the address of Grameen Telecom was not changed in the document of the organization. We visited Telecom Bhavan, 53, Baksnagar, Zoo Road, Mirpur, Dhaka 1216. The plaintiff filed a suit on 09/09/21. The address of the defendant in the case mentioned is Grameen Bank Bhavan, Plot No. 6, Barabagh, Mirpur, District Dhaka 1216. I have not written the address of 53 Baksnagar, Zoo Road in this case. I do not remember how many floors the Grameen Telecom building has.

Estimated it could be 12/13 floors. I did not see any factory of Grameen Telecom there. There are offices of various organizations of the Grameen Group. We did not go to the factory, went to the organization. It is not true that there was no irregularity in the organization or this case was filed only to defame Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
It is true that during the first inspection on 09/02/20, I went to the address given in the complaint petition. We have never visited any of the Telecom factories for inspection. Went to Grameen Telecom. Some documents are missing since the plaintiff is dead. Official documents are kept in the office. It is not true, that no violation of the Labour Act was found in the first inspection, so did not prepare any checklist on 09/02/20 or submit the checklist to the court for that. After one year 6 months and 8 days of the first inspection, the second inspection was done. If there were irregularities in the first inspection on 09/02/20, then the inspection would not have been done after one year, 6 months and 8 days, would have visited within a short period of time, not true because we have to inspect many organizations. It is not true that Dr. Muhammad Yunus was our target, so we went to inspect again on 16/08/21 in a planned way.
Our office does not have a separate document security system. I prepared a checklist on 09/02/20, therefore there is no office order. Non-availability of the checklist was not communicated to the development officer through office notice. Checklist is a public document. No GD entry has been made regarding loss of checklist. I received the responsibility after the plaintiff died. The checklist dated 09/02/20 was not considered necessary for the case since it was the second inspection checklist. It is true that I found the checklist dated 16/08/21 to be an important document for filing the case. It is not true that the checklist was tampered or so it is important. I do not know the name of other director apart from the 3 accused directors in the case. I did not even know at the time of filing the case. On 09/02/20 while preparing the 1st checklist, at the time of 2nd inspection, while preparing the 2nd checklist, I saw the names of other directors in Article of Memorandum. Dr. Mohammad Yunus is the Chairman of Grameen Telecom and no work of Grameen Telecom is done without his permission. This is the Article of Memorandum, the decision of various board meetings. I do not have any such paper that he has ordered to do so and I have not submitted any such paper in the court at the time of filing the case. I did not mark the Exhibit by submitting any paper to the court. It is not true that Dr. Mohammad Yunus was not directly involved in the violation of the Labour Act, but I implicated him, or he did not violate the Labour Act, so I did not submit the relevant documents. It is true that none of the accused in the case has submitted papers regarding violation of Labour Acts.

It is not true, that despite his non-involvement, I have filed a case against him under the pressure of higher authorities. It is true that no one can be prosecuted without evidence but the accused have been sued on the basis of the information found in the checklist during the inspection. Evidence of violation is also found in the defendants’ reply.
After the first inspection, a notice was issued to the defendants on 01/03/20. In the notice, the owner/managing director/manager of Grameen Telecom, Plot 6, Barabagh, Mirpur, Dhaka is written. It is true, that apart from 4 accused, there are a few more names in the notice. It is true that except for 4 defendants, i.e. Mr. Parvin Muhammad Naznina Sultana, General Manager Nazmul Islam, no one has been accused. It is not true that I said that I do not know the name of any director outside the checklist and petition that is false. It is not true that the persons mentioned in the notice are related to Grameen Telecom or as our target, 4 persons have been targeted and requested for checklist.
There were 9 charges against the defendants in the notice dated 01/03/20. I did not file a case on 9 charges. It is true that I have filed a case on 3 charges. It is not true, that there were no other charges beyond the 3 charges. The subsequent replies made by the defendants included some samples indicating that the defendants had amended some of the charges and some were under process. It is not true that I have filed a case through an incomplete investigation.
It is not true that the statement dated 05/09/23 that we have accused those by whom the company/organization is run. It is true that Grameen Telecom is not run by the four accused or is run by the Grameen Telecom Board of Directors.
However, the 4 accused are part of the Board of Directors. It is not true that despite having 12/13 board of directors in Grameen Telecom, we purposefully did not make them accused, but under pressure from higher authorities, we accused those close to Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
It is not true that in spite of section 3 of the Labour Act, the appointment of every worker and other matters related to it will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Act, but instead of making Grameen Telecom the accused, 4 people have been accused.
It is not true that I have purposefully accused 4 people excluding the Board of Directors. It is not true that under sections 3, 234, 312 of the Labour Act, no person can be accused except the organization, yet 4 people were accused purposefully.
It is not true that the case has been filed a case against a person as the organization did not violet the law or I would have filed a case against the organization if it had really violated the law. It is not true that the defendants had no personal liability. Because they are the directors of the organization.
It is not true that the 4 defendants including Dr. Yunus were not responsible for the permanent employment of the workers, annual leave with wages, guaranteeing the profit of the workers, or the responsibility of the Grameen Telecom organization or knowing that, I have filed a case against the 4 people on purpose. The statement is correct that the name of the managing director Nazmul Islam was changed to Ashraful Islam on 24/12/20 after amending the trade license. It is true about change in name of the taxpayer on trade license on 24/12/20. True that it is mentioned about Ashraful Hasan instead of the former taxpayer Nazmul Islam. It is not true that in the order dated 24/12/20 of Dhaka North City Corporation, the defendant appointed Ashraful Hasan as the managing director despite knowing that the next taxpayer Ashraful Hasan has been appointed instead of the previous taxpayer Nazmul Islam.
According to the information provided by the organization, Ashraful Hasan has been made an accused and the authorities of the organization signed the checklist and in response to the respondent along with us on 25/02/21, Mr. Md. Ashraful Hasan was written as the Managing Director at number 7 in the part of the members present at the 102nd meeting of the Board of Directors. A copy of the reply was not submitted to the court. It is not known how many labour inspectors are there in Dhaka district. On 16/08/21, we 5 labour inspectors went to Grameen Telecom. They were S.M. Arifuzzaman, I myself Tariqul Islam, Md. Hadiuzzaman, Md. Enamul Haque, Mizanur Rahman. We are all Labour Inspectors (General) and of equal rank. We went for the inspection on the instructions of the Deputy Inspector General. We were appointed by the Deputy Inspector General. The jurisdiction of Mirpur region was determined by the Deputy Inspector General of myself and others of S.M. Arifuzzaman.
There is no mention of the checklist in the case petition true, but it is in the list. The list is submitted in court. It is true that the chairman/managing director/director is mentioned in the notice dated 19/08/21. It is true that only 4 defendants were not given notice in this notice.
It is true that the plaintiff found violation of the following rules of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 and Labour Rules 2015 during the inspection of the company on 09/02/20 and 16/08/21. It is true that the plaintiff and others with him are not mentioned here. According to the description of Exhibit 2 petition, the notice of on-site inspection of the plaintiff on 09/02/20 is true. It is true that this notice does not have the signature of the plaintiff. It is true that this notice is signed by myself and Swagri Rani Addya. On 09/02/20, I went to inspect by the Deputy Inspector General’s order. After this inspection, a notice was issued to the Managing Director/Director of Grameen Telecom on 01/03/20.

It is true that this notice described the inspection of 09/02/20. No copy of the notice has been given to the Deputy Inspector General for reference. It is not true that the description of the notice dated 01/03/20 does not match with the inspection mentioned by the plaintiff on 09/02/20. It is true that the notice is not signed by the plaintiff and the copy of the letter signed by the plaintiff has not been sent to the Deputy Inspector General. It is not true that the original notice claimed in the petition of the plaintiff was not filed in the court as Exhibit 2. It is not true that if the original notice was filed, there would have been no material to charge against the accused, and so I concealed the original letter and presented the forged letter as Exhibit 2. Because the respondent has given a reply with the signature of the managing director as per the said notice. We submit the inspection report to the Deputy Inspector General. It is true that the Deputy Inspector General ordered to issue notice after seeing the report. He ordered the plaintiff. Exhibit 2 notice was not submitted by the person directed by the Deputy Inspector General. At the time of giving the notice, I had jurisdiction in the concerned area and the plaintiff was not responsible for that area. The copy was not sent to the Deputy Inspector General since it was not signed by the plaintiff. It is not true that myself and Swapna Rani Adya have hurriedly issued the said notice on own initiative. It is not true that the plaintiff single-handedly inspected the respondent organization on 16/08/21. Someone from the inspection team is the plaintiff. It is true that it is not written in the petition that inspection was done by the inspection team on16/08/21. The plaintiff inspected the defendant’s organization on 16/08/21 with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General. It is true that he issued a notice on 19/08/21 with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General. It is true that the plaintiff has signed according to the rules on the right side of the notice and below it is dated in Bengali and English. It is true that Bangla 4 Bhadra. 11428 and below 19 August 2021 is written. It is true that Letter No. is written in the notice. It is true that a copy is also given to the Deputy Inspector General. It is not true that Exhibit 2 Letter No. is not given. It is true that after the signature of the plaintiff in the notice, the signature of Md. Hadiuzzaman, Md. Enamul Haque, Md. Tariqul Islam, Mizanur Rahman and date is given. It is not true that in this letter after the name of the plaintiff, the signatures of 4 others have been tampered with. It is not true that I am involved in the tampering. It is not true that I tampered, created and submitted to stand as a witness against 4 people including Dr. Muhammad Yunus, to implicate him in a false case or submitted it as Exhibit 5. True Exhibit 6 Reply of the respondent to the notice dated 19/08/21. Reply given by Mr. Nazmul Islam, Managing Director, Grameen Telecom. It is true that there were 8 violations in the notice dated 19/08/21.
Violation No. 1 was Section 3, Rule 3, The complaint was that there are service rules (service rules) regarding the employment of workers which are not approved by the Inspector General. The reply of the true opponent was that Grameen Telecom has its own policy for proper management of operations which has been sent to the inspector general’s office on 28/02/2018 for approval (copy attached) but so far we have not been informed by the said office.
In view of your receipt of this question, Grameen Telecom’s recruitment policy and related policies have been sent to your office again on 25/08/21 (copy attached). It is true that I have not filed the copy of the copy attached in the reply with Ex-6,
Violation No. 2 was the fact that workers/employees of the establishment were not made permanent as per the law at the end of the apprenticeship period of Section 4(7)(8). It is true, in the action taken the defendant replied that Grameen Telecom was a not-for-profit company created under Section 28 of the Companies Act. As per the prevailing recruitment rules of the organization, the workers are made permanent at the end of the apprenticeship period. All the workers and employees of the organization are appointed on contractual basis.
Violation of Section no. 3 (Substituted for Section 5) 35, Rule 19, it is true that the employment letter of the worker/employee of the violating organization is not provided as per 19(4) of Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015 and the identity card is not provided as per Form No. 6 of Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015. Exhibit 6. True that in the system adopted, it is written that every worker and employee of Grameen Telecom has been given ID card and the register is being maintained in Form 6 (a). As per 19(4) of Bangladesh Labour Act 2015 sample of appointment letter is given for your approval (copy attached). Form no. 6 (a) is maintained in the Register (copy enclosed). It is true that the attached copy was not given with Exhibit 6.
Violation No. 4 Section 6. Rule 2021, No. 7 of Bangladesh Labour Act 2015 has not maintained the service book of officers/employees. In the system adopted, the workers are maintained in the employee service book. It is true that it is written in the attached sample. I have not submitted the true copy.
Violation No. 5 Section 95(1), Rule 23- As per No. 8 of Bangladesh Labour Act 2015, it is true that the worker/employee register is not maintained. In the duly adopted action, it is written that the register is maintained (copy attached) is being preserved as per Form no. 8. True attached copy is not submitted.
Violation No. 6, Section 46, 47, 48 Rule 38, 39, No information/register has been maintained regarding maternity welfare facilities for women workers, employees working in the organization. It is true that in the system adopted, it is written that the register regarding maternity welfare facilities for women employees working in the organization is being maintained.
Violation No. 7, Section 117, Rule 107 – Provision of annual leave with wages, encashment of leave and non-cash payment against leave to the workers/employees working in the organization and as per the system adopted, this leave is earned for the first time after 6 years of receipt of contract employment. 1 month’s basic salary can be taken in lieu of leave. 1 month’s basic salary shall be paid against accrued leave after every 3 years. However, in all these cases, a minimum of 60 days of earned leave must be accumulated. In the light of the decision of the 102nd Board meeting, the existing rules have been amended and made effective as per the provisions of the Labour Act from 1 January 2021 (attached to the extract of the Board meeting). In the light of this decision, payment against accrued leave to all eligible as on 31/12/20 is under process. It is true that it is written that the provision of leave under the Labour Act, 2006 has been introduced with effect from 1 January 2021.
Violation No. 8, Section 234 Labour Participation Fund and Welfare Fund is not constituted and 5% of the net dividend is not deposited in the fund constituted as per the Leave Fund and Labour Welfare Foundation Act, 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10) and in the system adopted, the Grameen Telecom Company’s warranty is limited by section 28 of the Act, 1994. Not-for-profit company profits are not distributable. In the present context, therefore, WPPF is not applicable to Gramin Telecom. It may be noted here that a total of 107 officers/employees of Grameen Telecom have filed a case against the organization for the benefits of WPPF. The case is currently pending in the 3rd Labour Court. If the judgment in this case is promulgated, you will be informed about it and necessary steps will be taken to implement the promulgated judgment. It is also noted that the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Government Ministry of Labour and Employment has been informed in this regard through letter DDC/MDS/2021-504 dated 21/08/21. A copy of which is attached for your reference. It is true that this is written It is true that the attachment Exhibit 6 is not submitted in court. It is true that in view of the reply, it is written that “your kind consideration of the 3 documents is requested”. We have considered the documents. It is true that no letter was given to the respondent after consideration. No documents regarding consideration have been submitted as Exhibits in the court.
From the 8 violations of the respondent, after carefully considering their replies and documents, a case was filed for only 3 violations. It is not true, without considering the reply of the respondent, I have arbitrarily and hastily filed a case to harass Dr. Yunus and 3 others with him without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves or to humiliate them in the country and outside the country.
It is true that Exhibit (Exhibit 1) dated 24/01/17 will not be filed in court just by uploading it on our website. It is not true that I lied about what Ashraful Islam, who signed the checklist, said as Managing Director. It is not true that, I have accused under the pressure of special circles, even though I have not seen the cases of the defendants before. True that Section 4(7) of the Labour Act states about permanent workers association. It is not true that the provisions of 4(7) and 4(8) have not been violated by the respondents. True that 4 (8) has given the association of workers. It is not true that if the employment of the worker is not permanent, the Labour Act will be violated. There is no such provision in 4(7) and 4(8) of the Labour Act. True that 4 (7) and 4 (8) is not about crime. True that 4 (7) and 4 (8) of the Labour Act do not contain the fact that it will be a crime if it is not observed in these two sections. It is true that at the time of filing the case, there is a further condition in section 4(8) that even if the confirmation letter is not given at the end of the apprenticeship period or at the end of 3 months extension, according to the provisions of sub-section (7) the employment of the concerned worker will be considered as permanent. The respondents wrote in reply that they have appointed the workers on contractual basis and also sent the sample along with us. It is true that in the notice dated 01/03/20 the above was mentioned in column 2. True that, in reply of the defendants (Exhibit 3) it is stated that “As per the employment rules of Grameen Telecom, all the workers are appointed for 3 years and provided with provident fund, gratuity, earned leave like permanent employees. This employment contract is renewed every 3 years. It is noted that Grameen Phone’s original work is Polyphone activities and providing after-sales service for Nokia mobile handsets, managed through contract with Grameen Phone and renewed every 3 years. Similarly, after sales service of Nokia handsets is managed through contract with Nokia and can be terminated by either party on 3 months’ notice as per Nokia contract. Since Grameen Telecom does not have any permanent operations and its business activities are conducted on the basis of contracts with various parties, for the work that is being contracted, the manpower required according to the type of business needs to be employed in the light of the special skills and requirements.
It is true that in the notice dated 19/08/21, it is again stated that the employment of the officers/employees of the organization has not been extended on completion of the apprenticeship period. True that the defendant has replied to this notice on 29/08/21. True that in the reply, the defendant said, “The Grameen Telecom Company is a non-profitable company created under Section 28 of the Act.” The organization makes contractual appointments”.
It is true that even after mentioning the measures taken in response to the reply dated 09/03/20 and the notice dated 19/08/21, without taking them into consideration and stating that there is any objection or violation regarding compliance, no notice was given before the case. Because in response to the notice dated 19/08/21 sent to Grameen Telecom on 01/03/20, the respondent repeated the same statement and failed to obey the law and violated the law. It is true that we have not visited the respondents’ organization to inspect their claimed compliance after the respondents’ reply of 29/08/21. It is not true that a case was filed against the respondent without inspection. I have visited the respondents’ organization 2 times before.
It is true that no worker has complained to us that the jobs of the workers have not been made permanent. Even though there is no complaint from the workers, we carried out the inspection because the organization has to be inspected according to the Annual Performance Agreement. It is true that a case cannot be filed without further inspection if any complaint has been complied with Grameen Telecom has been inspected 2 times and their response shows fraud and negligence. After examining the reply of the respondent, the case was filed. Attachment given with reply. I have checked the true attachment and have not submitted it to the court. It is true that no one has ever been brought before the court for the permanent employment of Grameen Telecom workers. It is true that that there was no court order to make the employment of any worker of Grameen Telecom permanent in view of any petition of ours. It is not true that Gramin Telecom had no order to make the workers permanent, violation of which constituted a criminal offence. Because the Directorate of Factories after inspecting the factory, finding the factory and the organization violated the Labour Act, if the case is filed in the court, the court will give an order. We have not taken any steps to resolve those Grameen Telecom workers whose jobs have not been regularized and Grameen Telecom. A case was filed without taking the initiative of settlement in the course of action. It is not true that whereas as per section 4(8) the company has not made the employees’ employment permanent but their employment has been permanent after a certain period of time, the case has been filed knowingly or there is no expediency in the case.
The case is filed because the respondent has made contractual appointments. Not true that the respondent has appointed the workers on temporary contractual basis as per 4(d) of the Labour Act or since the activities of Grameen Telecom are on temporary contractual basis, all its workers have been appointed on temporary contractual basis or accordingly the contract of the workers is renewed along with the renewal of the contract of Grameen Telecom. Or payment of gratuity, allowance, accrued leave provident fund etc. is made to the workers as any permanent worker or Section 3 of the Labour Act is not applicable to the organization. I have filed a complaint under Section 117 of the Labour Act. I have related all the sub-sections in section 117 because the respondent has violated the Labour Act and labour rules and has not kept the register in accordance with the rules. It is not true that my statement is not consistent with Rule 107. True that Rule 107 deals with calculation of annual leave, cash payment of accrued leave etc.
It is mentioned in 177(7) that if a worker applies for accrued leave, if the employer does not do so, the said leave shall be added to the limit specified in sub-section (5) or (6) for the respective worker.
No worker has complained to us in this regard. It is not true that if a worker of Grameen Telecom applies for accrued leave and it is not granted, then his leave shall be added as per law in addition to the limit mentioned in (5) and (6), should be added according to law. But in its reply dated 09/03/20, Grameen has said that after completing the apprenticeship period and on becoming regular, the employees get the earned leave and the need is encashed. Again, in the reply dated 29/08/21 it said that 1 month’s basic salary can be accepted in lieu of accrued leave for the first time after 6 years of contractual appointment. Thereafter 1 month’s basic salary will be paid against earned leave after every 3 years, but in this case minimum 60 days of earned leave must be accumulated.
It is true that 117 (1) is applicable to adult workers. True that Section 117 (2) shall apply to minor workers. It is true that Grameen Telecom has no child labour, 117 (1)(a) will apply to Grameen Telecom case. It is not true that as per 117 (5)(b) of Labour Act minimum 60 days is mentioned. It is true that in response on 29/08/21, it has been stated that their existing law regarding earned leave has been amended as per the decision of the 102nd Board meeting and the Labour Act has been implemented with retrospective effect from 01/01/21.

It is true that it is also written in view of your notice dated 19/08/21. Not true that there is no violation of rules with respect to granting of earned leave. Even if the accrued leave is not paid to the worker on specified time which is in 117 (5)(b) provisioned as per the respondent, it is not true that I have made false allegations against the defendants.
It is true that it is not said in the petition of the case that fraud and negligence were found in the criminals’ reply and in our 2 times visit. Not true. There was no violation in the attachment of the reply of the defendants and therefore I have not filed the affidavits with the reply. True it is not there in the labour law that contract-based employment cannot be given. In case of Grameen Telecom, contract-based employment is a crime because Grameen does not have registration of contractual employment, it is not known whether Grameen Telecom has applied for registration. True in response to the notice dated 01/03/20, Grameen Telecom mentioned on 01/03/20 that Grameen Telecom does not have any permanent activities and on the basis of contract with various organizations, Grameen Telecom hires workers on contractual basis according to the type of business. Grameen Telecom applied for registration on 28/02/18 which is mentioned in their reply and as mentioned it was not informed to Grameen Telecom and again on 25/08/21 Grameen Telecom applied for approval with attachment in reply which is not true. Because what is required for contract base recruitment, Grameen Telecom did not do that. They have requested for the approval of employment regulations. It is true that as per 3(1) of the Labour Act there is a provision that the organization should have its own employment regulations. The employment rules contain all the matters related to the contractual appointment or regular appointment of the organization or separately, the law does not mention about the contractual registration, it is not true. Not true according to the Labour Act, the petition is supposed to be disposed of within 90 days of the petition, but by not doing so the mills directorate has violated the law. It is not true that the order is aggrieved and cannot be appealed, so we did not give the order or we did it inspired by the purpose or the labour inspector instead of law protector became a law eater in this case. True section 117 does not deal with maintenance of register. Not true Section 117 relating to all the sub-sections of this Act against the defendants cannot be sued under Section 117. Where section 117 applies, the relevant sub-sections shall be attached. It is not true when we filed the case, we did not have general knowledge about this matter, have filed the case in this regard at the instigation of special circles.
The 3rd allegation against the defendants in the petition of the case is violation of Section 234. Complaints have been brought after reviewing these laws while making the complaint. It is true that it is mentioned in Section 236 that if the provisions of Section 234 fail to be complied with, then the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Institutions will order to comply within a specified period. Grameen Telecom has not been directed to comply with Section 236 within a specified time. Because Grameen Telecom in its reply dated 09/03/20 pointed out that Grameen Telecom Company Act does not have provision for payment of dividend under section 28 of Grameen Telecom Companies Act and therefore WPPF is not applicable to Grameen Telecom. Again, in reply dated 29/08/21 said Grameen Telecom is limited by guarantee under Section 28 of the Grameen Telecom Companies Act, 1994, not-for-profit company whose dividend is not distributable so WPPF is not applicable to Grameen Telecom and further said that there is a case pending in court in this regard. The cases filed by the workers are part of the government’s 80:10:10 by law, that’s why government filed a case, which is under trial. In reply dated 09/03/20 and 29/08/21 of the defendants, as per section 28 of the Grameen Companies Act provision of dividend payment is not applicable therefore WPPF is not applicable to Grameen Telecom, hence we have not given directions under section 236 (1) is not true. It is not true that, as is mentioned in the reply of the defendant dated 09/03/20 and 29/08/21 the Grameen Telecom Company being a not-for-profit company WPPF is not applicable to them is accepted by us and by law has not given instructions under Section 236 (1)or Section 236 (3), in case of failure to pay the fine of Taka 1 lakh, we have not made arrangements to impose a fine of Taka 5,000/- daily or order of the payment within 60 days or collect this amount as per the Public Demand Recovery Act. It is not true that because the Inspector General did not fix the time specified in 236 (1), or because of penalty, the respondent was deprived of the opportunity of 45 days and 30 days to apply for reconsideration under section 236 (4). It is true that the exercise of the power of Section 319 (5) is specifically inserted in Section Nineteenth Section 4(7), (8), 117, 234 Sections 4(7), (8), 117, 234 of the charges brought against the accused for use in respect of offences, punishments and procedures; not true, but what is contained in 303(E) and 307 mentions the punishment for other offenses 4(7)(8), 117, 234, therefore I complained under section 303(E) and 307. It is true that I have asked for punishment as requested for the violation of the sections, which are not mentioned in Chapter Nineteen.

I have been in the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Institutions since August 2015. It is true that this organization is under the Ministry of Labour and Employment. I do not know whether the Directorate of Factories and the Directorate of Labour are following the labour laws. As far as I know Chapter Thirteen deals with the Directorate of Labour. It is true that as per 319 (5), the Directorate of Factories is empowered to file a complaint against an individual in the Labour Court. It is true that Chapter Twenty-nine is about crimyself and conflict. It is true that 319 (5) about offense is related to the fact, true that apart from Chapter Nineteen, Sections 4(7)(8), 117, 234 of the Labour Act are not marked as offences. It is not true that as Section 4(7), (8), 117, 234 is not a section on crime, therefore these sections are not applicable to other offenses under Section 307.

It is true that 8(7)(8) provides for civil remedy and section 117 provides for civil remedy. It is true that as per 234, civil remedy is given in Section 236. It is true that CBA works on behalf of workers in mills and factories. There is a labour and employee trade union in Grameen Telecom. We did not speak to the trade union for their opinion during the inspection of the organization. It is not true that according to the law, the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments can file only criminal cases, but not civil cases. It is not true that as per 4(7)(8), 117, 234, being a civil offense, the labour department has the sole right to take action on trade union matters in the interests of workers. It is not true that Section 4(7)(8), 117, 234 is a civil violation and we do not have legal jurisdiction to file a criminal case against the defendants for the said violation or if the violation is related to trade union, I do not know whether it is a labour department matter. It is not known whether a permanent worker can form a trade union or whether a trade union can be registered. It is not true that I said I do not know even though I knew. It is not known whether the Grameen Telecom Workers Union has filed a 12-point claim or industrial dispute under Section 210 of the Labour Act with the Managing Director on behalf of the workers. It is not known whether the claims are described in Sections 4(7)(8), 117, 234 of the said 12 points. Not true that I lied. It is not known whether the trade union filed a case in the Third Labour Court regarding the said claim on 19/12/19. I came to know that the workers filed a case. It is not true that we do not have jurisdiction to inspect the organization while the case is pending in the labour court or while the case filed in the Labour Court regarding the attestation letter of the Department of Labour was pending after the workers of Gramin Telecom applied to the Directorate of Labour, the Department of Mills had no legal authority to inspect the same on 01/03/20 and 19/08/21 or file a harassment suit on the false allegations by making the so-called inspections in violation of the labour laws.

The number of workers of Grameen Telecom is 67 according to the last inspection. It is true that the Labour Act provides the number of workers. It is true that as per the law, it is our responsibility to protect the interests of the workers. I cannot name any worker who was working at Grameen Telecom during the inspection. It is not true that Gramin Telecom is not an industry related organization. Grameen Telecom has no industrial plant. When I visited Grameen Telecom last time, I got to know 67 workers according to the number of workers they said. True that there is a record of Grameen Telecom in the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments. According to the records of Grameen Telecom in our company, I do not know the number of workers at this moment. It is not true that the record mentions 67 officers/employees out of which 9 are workers. It is true that Grameen Telecom is a merit-based organization, where most of the workers are officers. Workers as per the labour law. At the time of last inspection on 16/08/21, there were 09 workers or among them 5 drivers and 4 messengers or 5 drivers respectively: Khalilur Rahman, ID No. 2, Md. Rahim ID No. 381, Md. Sohrab Hossain Khalifa ID No. 152, Md. Sadiq ID No. 185, Md. Nazrul Islam ID No. 339, I have no information about it. It is not true that messenger worker Abul Hasnat ID No. 3, Md. Abdur Rauf ID No. 29. Md. Nizam Uddin ID No. 1, Md. Nasir Uddin ID No. 242. Because, 67 of them are workers. It is not true that except for 9, the remaining 58 officers are not workers. It is not true that the alleged fake inspection list was created on 16/08/21 by concealing the names and designations of Managing Directors, Managers, Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers, Senior Officers, Officers, Assistant Officers, total 58 persons, by falsely arranging and showing 9 workers (5 drivers) 4 (messengers), total 67 persons as workers: purposefully filed a false case against Grameen Telecom. It is true that in the petition of this case filed by the plaintiff on 09/01/21, during the on-site inspection of the defendant organization by the plaintiff on 09/02/20, the above violations were found along with other violations. It is true that a notice was sent by the plaintiff on 01/03/20 to rectify the said violation. It is true that it is also mentioned in the petition that according to the content of the said letter, the violated section and rules have been amended and the reply given on 09/03/20 is not satisfactory. Other than the sections mentioned in the defendant’s reply petition, the rest of the sections and rules of the notice were amended and were under process. It is true that it is mentioned in the petition that the plaintiff inspected the site again on the instructions of the higher authorities and sent a registered letter on 19/08/21.
It is true that it is also mentioned in the petition that plaintiff thinks the defendant’s reply dated 29/08/21 is not satisfactory. In view of the plaintiff’s notice, the defendant has amended some of the violated sections and rules, but some of them are still in process. In the reply dated 09/03/20, the violated section 5 was amended. The rest were under process. In reply dated 29/08/21, section 3 was in process and the Sections 5, 6, 46, 47, 48 were amended. In the reply dated 09/03/20 and 29/08/21, the section which is under amendment and process is not specifically mentioned in the petition. True that, in reply to the notice dated 01/03/20, it is mentioned in the petition that the defendant responded by amending the violations on 09/03/20. But it is taken that the reply is not satisfactory. True that, in the view of the notice dated 19/08/21, in the defendant’s response dated 29/08/21, the reply was given by amending the provisions of the violated sections of the notice. It is written in the petition that the reply was not satisfactory. It has been stated in the petition about the matters that were violated. True that, the plaintiff wrote in petition “It appears that defendant is not respecting prevailing labour laws”, it is not true that the plaintiff has not firmly asserted. True that, the plaintiff has stated in the petition that the plaintiff thinks the defendants have committed offenses punishable under Sections 307 and 303(E) of the Labour Act (Amendment) 2013. Not true that, it is said the Plaintiff does not firmly believe. It is not true that the defendants have not violated any provisions of the sections of the petition or therefore the defendants have not committed the crime of being punished for the violation of the said law or no reason has arisen to issue an order to amend the alleged violations mentioned in section 310 by fixing the time limit or there is no need to issue such an order to the defendants. True that, it is stated in Article of Memorandum 5.5 of the defendants that all the income of Grameen Telecom will be used for various important purposes but no bonus or profit will be given to anyone. True that, it is written that no dividend will be given to any member or anyone at the time of registration. Chief officer of Grameen Telecom is Managing Director /Chairman. It is not true that I did not say that the permission of the Labour Department should be obtained as per 3(a) of the Act in case of contractual employment. True that, I did not accuse the organization. It is not true that I have filed a case against the Honorary Chairman and others for harassing at the instigation of others without accusing the organization.
PW-2 mentioned in his statement, “I am working as Deputy Inspector General of Labour (General), in the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments. As a member of the team formed by the office on 12/08/21, I inspected Grameen Telecom, Mirpur on 16/08/21 with other members of the team. During the inspection, I started working in the light of the notice given on 09/02/20. A notice was sent to Grameen Telecom on 19/08/21.

We found the same violations mentioned in the 2020 notice during the 2021 inspection. Grameen Telecom replied to the notice on 29/08/21. In response, Grameen Telecom mentioned that they recruit on contractual basis. I submitted a certified photocopy of a contractual appointment dated 17/11/16. Attested on 13/09/23, Exhibit 09, Attested by Dr. Dipadatta, Assistant Inspector General, I know the signature of the attester. Signature Exhibit 91)
In the reply dated 29/08/21, Grameen Telecom wrote that temporary workers are made permanent at the end of the tenure. All are contractually employed. This is a violation of the labour law. It also said in the reply that annual leave is encashed after 3 years and 1 basic salary is paid. This is also a violation of the labour law! In the reply, it was also there that the case regarding profits is in the High Court. The case is about the workers’ share. We have demanded the share of the Workers Welfare Foundation, which Grameen Telecom has never deposited. The calculation is 80:10:10. A case was filed on 9/9/21 regarding the above 3 violations. A remedy is desired for the respondent having violated the labour law. This is my testimony.
Here, the witness stated in the cross-examination:
“When I inspected Grameen Telecom on 16/08/21, I had no idea about the structure and functioning of Grameen Telecom. Inspected to get the idea. Grameen Telecom is a commercial enterprise. I do not know at this point whether it was a commercial enterprise under any law. Grameen Telecom is Grameen Phone’s partnership company, they do the activities related to Nokia handsets like after sales service, sales (according to them). This matter itself was in the official record. I do not know if Grameen Telecom does after sales service of Grameen Phone or Palli phone. It is true in section 3 of the Labour Act that the organizations which cannot directly comply with the provisions of the Labour Act can have their own service rules. As per Section 04, contractual appointment cannot be given. Not true that, not mentioned. True that, Section 4 of the Labour Act mentioned the classification of workers and does not say anything about contractual employment. Nowhere in the Labour Act it is said that contractual appointments can be made. I do not know whether it is said that contractual appointments cannot be made. My title is Labour Inspector (General). I have to conduct the labour inspection under labour laws. Not true that, I went to visit Grameen Telecom without any idea about the labour law or said that contractual appointment, without any idea at the behest of the higher authority, is a violation of the labour law. True that, in the copy of the contractual appointment I have submitted, it is written that the contractual appointment of the assistant officer will be effective for 3 years.
Grameen Telecom’s activities are contractual, so they appoint on a 3-year contractual basis, it is written in the appointment letter. True that, it is written in the appointment letter that if your overall activities during the apprenticeship period are not satisfactory to the authorities, the tenure will be increased further. What will be the pay scale of the job is mentioned in the appointment letter. It is not true that under the contractual activities of Grameen Telecom, the officer of my submission appointment letter is a permanent officer of Grameen Telecom, no letter was given to make the worker permanent. In the view of the appointment letter dated 17/11/16 (Exhibit: 9), I do not have any paper at this time whether the candidate’s job has been regularized or what has been done or whether his job was going on. I did not say from the assumption that the officer on the appointment letter was not made permanent later. Learned from Grameen Telecom’s reply that none of the workers of Grameen Telecom are permanent workers. True that in reply dated 29/08/21 to the notice dated 19/08/21 of Grameen Telecom, regarding the permanency of the jobs of the workers and employees, the business has mentioned that according to the law of the not-for-profit company organization created under Section 28 of the Grameen Telecom Company Act, the workers have been made permanent at the end of the apprenticeship, all the workers of the organization have been appointed on contractual basis. It is not true that the jobs of the workers have been made permanent, so the workers are working under the pay scale as permanent employees. It is true that Grameen Telecom’s reply dated 29/o8/21 said that every officer and employee of Grameen Telecom has been given ID card and a register is maintained in Form 6 (A). According to the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, Amendment 2015, Rule 15, 19 (4), the appointment letter is given in your office for approval. Copy attached. It is true that did not submit that copy. Not true that the ID card is not issued to the worker until his employment is permanent.
Violation of section 4(7)(8) of the Labour Act is mentioned in the petition. According to Workers 4 (8), although no worker is made permanent, they will be considered permanent workers according to the provisions of the law. It is true that according to the reply dated 29/08/21, Grameen Telecom gives earned leave after every 3 years, it is a violation of the labour law, I have said in the testimony. The date was not 29/08/21 in the reply of year 2020, in the reply of year 2021 for the first time after 6 years. It is true that in column 4 of Exhibit 9, it is mentioned that the officer can enjoy 20 days casual leave in every year and 30 days earned leave in a year after apprenticeship as per the rules of the company. According to the Bangladesh Labour Act, 1 day leave is earned after every 18 days. It is true that in that case, 14 days in a year, including public holidays. Not true that Grameen Telecom has given 30 days earned leave more than the leave prescribed by law. Not true that according to Grameen Telecom’s own service rules, 90 days are earned in 3 years, out of which 60 days are accumulated and 30 days are encashed, which according to the labour law, 7 days out of 14 days are accumulated in a year and 7 days are encashed or 21 days are encashed in 3 years or Grameen Telecom gives 9 days more than the labour law.
It is not true that I lied. Half is to be encashed but Grameen Telecom does not do that. It is not true that the workers of Grameen Telecom are merit-based employees and they are developed through training, so the merit-based employees need to have a longer period of service, so after 6 years of the contractual appointment, 1 month’s salary will be paid for the first time myself and then 1 month’s basic salary will be paid against the earned leave every three years, but in this case, a minimum of 60 days earned leave has to be accumulated or because of doing so, the employees of Grameen Telecom receive 6 basic salaries in addition to 10 earned leaves in 10 years. No worker of Grameen Telecom has complained to us that they are not getting earned leave. It is true that it is mentioned in section 117 (7) of the Labour Act that if a worker applies for earned leave, but if the leave is not granted, it shall be added to the concerned worker’s account in addition to the limit of of sub-section (5) and (6). It is true that it is said that the net profit was not deposited in the funds of the Workers’ Welfare Foundation as 80:10:10. Not true that the not-for-profit company created under section 28 of the Grameen Telecom Companies Act, 1994, whose profit is not distributable, or WPPF does not apply to the workers of Grameen Telephone or 80:10:10 is not applicable for Grameen Telecom. True that Section 232 of the Bangladesh Labour Act provides that the participation of workers in the profits of the company shall be applicable to the establishments engaged in this industry. Not true that, Grameen Telecom does not work as a factory, so Section 232 will not apply to Grameen Telecom. According to Section 233 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, Amendment 2013, Grameen Telecom does not do work related to industrial activity or Grameen Telecom does not do the activities related to the industrial work declared by the Ministry of Labour and Employment SRO 336-Act/2013 dated 7 October 2010, so the share of the net profit as dividend 80:10:10 in section 232 of the workers, it is not true that share of net profit, the provision of payment to the Participation Fund, Welfare Fund and Workers Welfare Foundation Fund will not be applicable. It is not true that “false testimony was given, or the statement is false, fabricated baseless or despite not having knowledge about Grameen Telecom’s activities and labour laws, company laws, I have given this statement at the instigation of vested quarters and to protect the interests and defamation of Mohammad Yunus and three others”.
PW-3 mentioned in his statement, “As a member of the inspection team, I along with other members of team inspected Grameen Telecom, Mirpur, Dhaka on 16/08/21 in the office order of the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, Deputy Inspector General’s Office, Dhaka dated 12/08/21.

During the inspection, other members of the team paid tribute to the late Labour Inspector S.M. Md Arifuzzaman, Labour Inspector Tariqul Islam, Labour Inspector Hadiuzzaman, Labour Inspector Mizanur Rehman and I signed the inspection checklist. During the inspection by the then inspection team on 09/02/20, emphasizing on the violation of specific section 09 and rules of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015, I started the inspection procedure. We verify the written reply of the organization authorities in 2020 and the inspection theory and data dated 16/08/21. In view of this, the inspection team sent a notice to Grameen Telecom on 19/08/21 from the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments recommending the implementation of specific section 8 and rules of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and Bangladesh Labour Code 2015. The notice was signed by all the members of the inspection team. On 29/08/21, the Grameen Telecom Authority submitted a written reply to the notice to the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, Deputy Inspector General’s office, Dhaka. The written reply dated 29/08/21 is found to be consistent (the same) as the written reply of 2020. From this, it is evident to the inspection team that Grameen Telecom does not respect the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and Bangladesh Labour Rules 2015, in this context, the late Labour Inspector S.M. Arifuzzaman filed a complaint with the Honorable Third Labour Court on 09/09/21, mentioning specific 3 sections and rules of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and Bangladesh Labour Rules 2015. Grameen Telecom Company violated the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and Bangladesh Labour Rules 2015 mentioned in the petition of the case. Justice requested against the company according to the law and rules for the violation. This is my testimony.
Here, the witness stated in the cross-examination:
“We, the 5 members of the inspection team inspected Grameen Telecom, Mirpur on 16/08/21. The inspection team was formed by our Deputy Inspector General. Among the 05 members, the team leader was the late labour Inspector S.M. Arifuzzaman. The order was issued on 12/08/21. The order specified the date on which the inspection should be done. I do not know whether the order of the Deputy Inspector General dated 12/08/21 has been filed in this case. I am aware of the petition of the case. In the petition dated 12/08/21, there is no mention of the order for the formation of a team of 5 inspectors and S.M. Arifuzzaman, the team leader.
S.M. Arifuzzaman, the team leader of my so-called team consisting of five inspectors, is the complainant of this case. In the petition, the plaintiff did not mention that a team of 5 members accompanied him to the said inspection. It is true that in the petition, the plaintiff has mentioned that the organization has been inspected by the plaintiff. It is not true that according to the plaintiff, 5 of us were not on the inspection with the plaintiff. It is true that It is written in the petition that the plaintiff inspected the Grameen Telecom Company on 16/08/21 under the direction of the Deputy Inspector General. It is true that according to the order of the Deputy Inspector General, 5 of us, along with the plaintiff, inspected the Grameen Telecom organization. It is true that we inspected with the plaintiff. It is not true that on 16/08/21, remaining 4 did not go for inspection of Grameen Telecom organization without the plaintiff. It is not true that on 16/08/21, the plaintiff went for inspection Grameen Telecom alone or we 5 members did not go together for inspection or the plaintiff signed the checklist alone or the other 4 of us did not sign the checklist or therefore, the checklist provided to Grameen Telecom did not have the signature of any member other than the plaintiff or even the plaintiff’s seal was not given below the signature of the plaintiff. It is not true that the last paragraph in the checklist prepared on 16/08/21 was completely empty and many of the other parts of paragraphs were empty, which is a conspiracy by us 4 inspectors and chief inspectors in connivance and filled through fraud and using his seal below the signature of the plaintiff, completed the check list to prove the false allegations against the accused. It is not true that the inspection dated 16/08/21 was done only by the plaintiff or only the plaintiff Arifuzzaman had the authority to give notice dated 19/08/21 or therefore, the notice dated 19/08/21 was to be given by the plaintiff or the notice dated 19/08/21 has been signed by the plaintiff or the copy signed by the plaintiff was given appropriately to the Deputy Inspector General or we, the other 4 labour inspectors, illegally signed next to the first signature of the letter. It is not true that if we had signed according to the rules, then while sending the copy to the Deputy Inspector General, there would have been the signatures of 4 of us plaintiffs. It is not true that our actions prove that we have done everything fraudulently. It is not true that apart from the plaintiff, the remaining 4 signatories (in the checklist) the labour inspector did not go to the site. The statement of the plaintiff regarding the inspection of Grameen Telecom on 16/08/21 is correct. The office we inspected was Mirpur, Baksnagar. Zoo Road is longitudinal in the north south. The Grameen Telecom building is a multi-storied building, estimated to be 15 floors. I do not know if there are any other offices in this building. I cannot remember, to which floor I went to. Used the elevator. I do not remember for which floor I used the elevator. We sat in the conference room. There was no factory where we sat. In my view, it was an office. We went there and made the list.
I listed 67 people who were employed. According to the information provided by the company, 67 people are employed. There were 4/5 people from the organization. Do not know what designations they are. There was one whose name was Nazmul Islam. That time, did not know his designation. Do not know how square foot the office is. The people I saw were sitting at the desk, working. It is not true that I gave false information. It is true that I did not go to Grameen Telecom, Plot No. 6, Barabagh, Mirpur, Grameen Bhavan. It is true that I did not go to the address written at the beginning of Exhibit 4. It is not true that in the first part of the checklist, in the general information in column A, the full name of the address where I went was Grameen Telecom, Barabagh, Plot No. 6, Mirpur, Dhaka Grameen Bank, Housing Complex, Dhaka as per the statement in the checklist. It is not true that I did not go to the site or because I did not go to the site, I do not know the designation of any officer there. I went to the office of Baksnagar Zoo Road in Mirpur and saw the working environment, health environment of the workers. I went to this address and saw the workers working. I did not ask if they were officers or workers. I do not know whether the building I have been to is the most modern building in the country. The elevator I went to was taken by the operator. I do not know who is the elevator operator in the building. I parked the car and went to the elevator. I made an entry of the name, address at the security point. I cannot say how many elevators the building has. The staff of the organization took me, I do not remember to which floor they took me in the elevator. It is not true that I did not go there, therefore I cannot say. We did not inspect all the rooms. It is not true that we did not go for the inspection of Grameen Telecom organization. Had I gone, I would see everything. It is not known whether the inspection dated 09/02/20 was in accordance with the order of the Deputy Inspector General. I have learned about the violations of the sections and rules during the inspection on 09/02/20 in their written reply and data analysis. I did not visit for the inspection dated 09/02/20. Tariqul Islam, Swapna Rani Adya, i.e. inspectors of the area, were in that inspection. True that There is no mention in the petition that Tariqul Islam and Swapna Rani Adya went for the inspection on 09/02/20. It is true that it is written in the petition that the plaintiff has inspected the above organization on site on 09/02/20. It is true that according to section 3 of the Labour Act, any organization can have rules of Labour appointment for the appointment of workers and there is no rule that can be less favorable to any worker than the labour law. It is true that Section 4 of the labour Act mentions the classification of workers, the period of apprenticeship and the provision of temporary workers. It is not true that Grameen Telecom appoints temporary workers on contractual basis under section 3 and section 4 (5) of the labour Law. Since Grameen Telecom does not have its own permanent activities and it operates on a contractual basis, I do not know whether all their employees are appointed on contractual basis under contractual work. In response to 09/03/20, Grameen Telecom said in this regard that according to the appointment rules of Grameen Telecom, the appointment is given for 3 years and benefits like entitled gratuity, earned leave, etc. are provided like permanent workers.
It is mentioned that this contract is renewed every 3 years, the main work of Grameen Telecom is to operate after sales service activities of Palli phone and Nokia handsets on the basis of agreement with Grameen Phone and the contract is renewed after 3 years. Similarly, after sales service of Nokia handsets is operated through contract with Nokia and both parties can terminate the operation of the agreement with 3 months’ notice. It is true that since Grameen Telecom does not have any permanent activities and operates through agreements with various organizations, therefore, whenever an agreement is made with any organization, the manpower has to be recruited accordingly, hence the workers of Grameen Telecom are appointed on a contractual basis. It is true that before going for inspection of Grameen Telecom, we, the team members, studied which all topics are to be seen. It is true that it is written in the petition, that the violation mentioned in the notice dated 01/03/20 was amended and reply was given on 09/03/20. According to the Labour Act, Grameen Telecom did not make any amendment. Employment rules not approved by the Director General, workers’ jobs were not made permanent according to Section 4(7)(8) of the Labour Act, workers’ leave was not encashed under Section 117 of the Labour Act, Section 223 of the Labour Act has not been implemented৷ I do not know which of the violations found in the inspection on 09/02/20 have been amended. In context of notice dated 19/08/21 in the plaintiff’s statement, I do not know, which all amendments did not satisfy the plaintiff in response of the organization dated 29/08/21, true, Section 4 (8) of the Labour Act states that, even if the apprentice worker’s job is not permanent, after a certain time, the job will become permanent as per law. No worker of Grameen Telecom has made an application to us saying that, their jobs were not made permanent. We did not find anyone named Sadman Shakib in front of us during the inspection. It is true that according to the provisions of the labour Act i.e. Section 4 (8), all the workers of Grameen Telecom have become permanent. It is not true that I lied that Grameen Telecom workers are not given annual leave. It is not true that workers of Grameen Telecom are given annual leave beyond the leave prescribed by law | It is true that if a worker seeks annual leave under section 117 (7), if the organization does not grant it, it will be added as leave in addition to the limit mentioned in 117 (5) and 117 (6). It is not known whether any worker of Grameen Telecom has asked for earned leave. I do not know what will happen if participation fund is not funded. It is true that any company or board of trustees failing to comply with the provisions of section 234 will get the benefit under section 236. No notice has been given under section 236 (1). It is true that Section 236 (2) does not say anything to the organization in relation with the provision. It is true that the organization did not comply with the Public Demand Recovery Act. It is not true that we have taken action against Grameen Telecom to cover up our failure. No case has been filed seeking the direction of the court to comply with the said 3 sections. I cannot say how many of the 67 workers are women and how many are men.
I cannot tell you how many employees, how many officers are there. Grameen Telecom is a merit-based organization, most of which are officers and educated, trained and when we did the inspection, there were only 9 workers or we have filed case showing everyone as worker, not true. I do not know whether the civil court has the authority to implement the Labour Act on those who are officers. I do not know whether the labour Court is only for the benefit of the workers. It is not true that I gave false testimony to harass Grameen Telecom in this case or the testimony I gave against Grameen Telecom is motivated, false, fabricated, instructed.”
PW-4 mentioned in his statement, “I am working as a labour Inspector (General) in the office of the Deputy Inspector General in Dhaka. On 12/08/21, on the instructions signed by my superior authority, Mr. A. K. M. Salauddin, Deputy Inspector General, as a member of the inspection team, I inspected Grameen Telecom located in Mirpur on 16/08/21 with other members of the inspection team S. M. Arifuzzaman, Labour Inspector (General), Md. Hadiuzzaman, Labour Inspector (General), Md. Tariqul Islam, Labour Inspector (General) and Mr. Md. Enamul Haque, labour Inspector (General). We use checklists during inspection. I fill out most of the information with my own hand, including the first part of the checklist, with general information. Other members of the inspection team signed the checklist. At the beginning of the inspection, we reviewed the issues inspected by our colleague on 09/02/20 and it is found that the notice given in the light of the said inspection was not properly complied with। The notice was dated 01/03/20. In response to the said notice, the organization submitted a written reply to our office on 09/03/20. The reply did not provide a satisfactory explanation of the implementation of the laws and rules. After inspection on 19/08/21, we. the members of the inspection team, signed and sent an Inspection Report to the management representatives of the organization, the inspection report recommended through letter to amend the violations of the law and rules. In response to the said letter, a written reply was sent to our office by the organization (Grameen Telecom) on 29/08/21. On reviewing the response, the implementation of laws and rules not being satisfactory, my colleague Late S.M. Arifuzzaman, Labour Inspector (General) filed a complaint on 09/09/21 with the Honourable Third Labour Court for violating Section 4(7)(8), 117, 234 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. Grameen Telecom employs workers on contractual basis, annual leave with wages and encashment is not done according to the law and rules and the Workers’ Participation Fund and Welfare Fund were not formed and 5% of the net dividend is not deposited in these two funds and Bangladesh Workers Welfare Foundation Fund.
I am seeking appropriate remedy against the defendants of this case for the above violation as per the law. This is my testimony.
I signed the checklist. This is my signature. Exhibit 4(1)
I signed the notice sent to Grameen Telecom on 19/08/21. This is my signature. Exhibit 5(2)
The late S.M. Arifuzzaman, Labour Inspector (General), Md. Hadiuzzaman Labour Inspector (General), Md. Tariqul Islam Labour Inspector (General), Md. Enamul Haque, Labour Inspector (General) signed the checklist. I know their signatures. They signed in front of me.
The notice dated 19/08/21 was signed by my other fellow labour inspectors in front of me. My signature in Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5(2) is marked.
This is the signature of Md. Tariqul Islam. Exhibit 5(3)
This is the signature of Md. Enamul Haque. Exhibit 5(4) This is the signature of Md. Hadiuzzaman. Exhibit 5(5)
This is S.M. Arifuzzaman’s signature on the checklist. Exhibit 4(2) This is the signature of Md. Hadiuzzaman Exhibit 4(3). This is the signature of Md. Tariqul Islam. Exhibit 4(4). Signature of Md. Enamul Haque, Exhibit 4(5).
Here, the witnesses stated in the cross-examination:
“It is true that it is not mentioned in the petition that I inspected the defendant’s organization on 16/08/21 with the inspection team. It is true that it is not written in the petition that I have filled the first column of the checklist with my own hands. It is true that the order signed by the Deputy Inspector General dated 12/08/21 is not mentioned in the petition for the Exhibit of the defendant organization. It is true that it is not mentioned in the petition that we, the 5 members of the inspection team, have signed the checklist together on 16/08/21. True it is mentioned in the petition that the plaintiff inspected the site of the defendant organization on 16/08/21. It is not mentioned in the petition that at the time of inspection with the plaintiff on 16/08/21, I and 3 others were present with the plaintiff.

It is true that the plaintiff did not mention in the petition that the checklist was prepared on 16/08/21. It is not mentioned in the petition that we, 4 people, have signed the checklist in front of the plaintiff. It is not true that we, 4 people, have not signed the checklist in front of the plaintiff. It is not true that in the checklist prepared on 16/08/21, the statement of the other 3 inspectors including me filling the checklist or signing the checklist without the plaintiff is not correct. I worked in the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments for about 6 years. During this service, I inspected not only Grameen Telecom. I inspected more than 500+ companies. We inspect under the direction of the Deputy Inspector General under the powers of the Inspector General. True that before inspecting an organization, the Deputy Inspector General gives an idea about what should be inspected. He gave an idea about Grameen Telecom that the organization is a commercial organization and the license is issued by the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, the organization is a shareholder of Grameen Phone and provides Palli phone operations and Nokia handset sales. I do not know whether Grameen Telecom is owned or partnered. We inspect the organizations to protect the interests of the owners, workers and the state. The case was filed under the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. It is true that the labour Law, 2006 was approved by the President on October 11, 2006. It is not true that Bangladesh Labour Act has been enacted only to protect the interests of the workers or it was not designed to protect the interests of officials or labour courts only try to protect the interests of workers and employees. It is true that the labour Court adjudicates under the Bangladesh labour Act, 2006.
We inspected Grameen Telecom Bhaban, Baksnagar Mirpur. It is true that in the petition, the place of occurrence of the case and the address of the accused are written as Grameen Telecom, Grameen Bank Bhavan, Plot-6, Barabagh, Mirpur. It is true that we did not go to the address given in the petition. I do not know if there is any labour union in Grameen Telecom. During the inspection, the documents presented by the organization authorities and the reply of Grameen Telecom mentioned that the jobs of the workers were not made permanent. I do not know whether any employee or labour union of Grameen Telecom has made any complaint to the directorate regarding the allegations mentioned in the petition. No complaint was submitted to me. It is true that Chapter 15 of the Bangladesh labour Act, 2006 talks about the profit of the workers. It is true that Section 232 of this chapter says that this Chapter shall apply to works relating to industry. It is not true that since Grameen Telecom is not engaged in industrial work, the workers of Grameen Telecom cannot get 5% dividend. It is true that Section 232(2) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 states that the Government may, by notification, apply this Chapter to any other company mentioned therein.

This is also true in the case of companies. It is true that the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 7 October 2010 by SR O Act No. 336/2010 declared 25 establishments and factories as industrial works for the purpose of fulfilling the objective. It is not true that Grameen Telecom does not fall among these companies. It is not true that Grameen Telecom is not involved in industrial activities so the 5% dividend is not applicable on it. It is true that Grameen Telecom Company is a company created under section 28 of the Act. It is not true that Grameen Telecom is a not for profit company. It is not true that the profits of Grameen Telecom are prohibited to workers within it as it is registered under Section 28 of the Companies Act. I am unaware whether it is mentioned in section 28 of the Act that its profit is not distributable if it is distributed to the members within the company then the license granted under section 28 will be cancelled. It is not true that Grameen Telecom is not bound to distribute 5% of profit to its members as it is prohibited in the said Act. It is true that when we visit a company, we check if the company falls under the company law and then we apply the Labour law. It is not true that we have falsely accused Grameen Telecom of not distributing its profits among its members in spite of being a company registered as a not for profit company, nor are we in violation of the Companies Acts enacted by the honourable National Assembly nor have we engaged in any such criminal activities. In worker welfare foundation there is provision of giving 5% to 10% of the profit. It is not true that we have been mistaken for not having clear concepts regarding Labour laws nor 1% to 50% has to be deposited. It is true that in the respondent’s reply dated 9/3/20, it is stated that Grameen Telecom is not a corporation created under Section 28 of the Companies Act, 1994 and therefore WPPF is not applicable to Grameen Telecom. Before going to visit on 16/8/21, we have reviewed the statement of the defendant’s reply and checked Section 28 of the Companies Act. We have seen that section 28 of the Companies Act does not provide that WPPF cannot be paid. It is stated that profits cannot be paid. It is true that in his reply dated 29/8/21 of the defendant to our notice dated 19/8/21 has said the same as in his earlier reply regarding worker participation fund, creation of welfare fund and net profit. It is true that in the notice dated 19/8/21, we have said that the Grameen Telecom Workers’ Participation Fund and the Welfare Fund have not been constituted and 5% of the net dividend is to be deposited in the said two funds and in the fund constituted under the Workers’ Welfare Fund Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10). is not Pursuant to the said notice, in the defendant’s reply dated 29/8/21, the defendant stated that the Grameen Telecom Company is a not for profit company limited by Section 28 of the Grameen Telecom Company Act, 1994, whose profits are not distributable. WPPF is therefore not applicable to Grameen Telecom in the present context. It is present in article 236(1) that in case a company or trustee is unable to fulfil the order set by

article 234, then the Government may, by order, issue directions for the performance of the work as per the relevant provisions within the period specified in the said order. Prior to the filing of this suit, due to failure to comply with the provisions of Section 234, a time was fixed and the same was ordered to be complied with within the specified period. Given by notice. This power can be exercised by the Deputy Inspector General under the authority of the Inspector General. A copy of this order has been given to the court. The notices dated 1/3/20 and 19/8/21 asked the respondent to comply with the specified time limits but the respondent institution failed to comply, apart from any other order issued under 236(1) it is not known at this point. There is no mention in this regard in the application. It is true that we went to the inspection as ordered by the Deputy Inspector General. We have submitted the inspection report dated 16/8/21 to the Deputy Inspector General. I have filed with the Deputy Inspector General and submitted to the court. Copy of the notice to the opponent dated 19/8/21 has been given to the Deputy Inspector General. I don’t remember at this moment on what date did we submit the inspection report to the Deputy Inspector General. The plaintiff S. M. Arifuzzaman sent it to the Deputy Inspector General. It is true that the plaintiff did not mention in application that the plaintiff submitted it to the Deputy Inspector General. We, the 5 members of the team conducted the inspection and sent the report to the Deputy Inspector General. I don’t remember on what date I sent it. I did not file any copy of the report in the court. After the Deputy Inspector General received the report, he ordered us to give a notice dated 19/8/21. The copy of the said order was not filed in the court. There is nothing about filing in the petition. I don’t know whether my organisation has taken any action against the defendant under section 236(2) I don’t know whether it has ordered penalty of 1,00,000 taka to the opponent for failure to comply with section 234. I don’t know whether any money has been recovered under section 236(3) of public demands recovery Act. I don’t know if it is not true. I only remember that on 12/8/21 the Deputy Inspector General formed an inspection team (of 5 members) and ordered an inspection. Moreover, I do not remember any other date. It is not true that I have committed perjury by swearing in court that I do not know or I know all the facts well or I have deliberately concealed the facts or dates because they will go against me or my organisation has complied with the provisions of 236(1) (2) (3) of the Labour Act. Instead of misusing power, my organisation has filed false cases against persons unrelated to the defendant at the instigation and direction of higher authorities to defame them. I know Polli Phone is run by Grameen Telecom. It is not true that Polli Phone is a project of Grameen Telecom which operates through Grameen Telecom on the basis of agreement under the direction of Grameen Phone in return of which Grameen Telecom receives 10% revenue share from Grameen Phone or the term of this agreement is 3 yearly

or after 3 years contract extension or after sales service of Nokia handsets across the country with Nokia phones and through contract based on Grameen Telecom contract which can be canceled on 3 months’ notice or renewed after 3 years or Grameen under this contract All officers and employees in their contractual character as per Telecom Act are appointed on contractual basis or even if they are appointed on contractual basis they are entitled to all benefits like permanent workers such as promotion, regularisation, pay scale, gratuity, provident fund, earned leave, medical allowance or because Since Grameen Telecom’s operations are contractual, they cannot be renewed without a renewed contract.
I do not know whether the plaintiff or the Nokia company manufactures Nokia phones. I don’t know if Nokia phones are made in Bangladesh. I don’t know if Nokia or Samsung phones are made in Bangladesh. I don’t know if after sale service of Nokia phones is provided through Grameen telecom contract. As per the trade license of Grameen Telecom, I know that they provide cellular phone service of Nokia phones. The trade license says that mobile provides cellular phone services. My organisation has not given me any information about any phone cellular service. The company did not give me any detailed information about the after sales service. It is true that the Grameen Telecom officers do the service work through the employees. I don’t know what kind of work the workers do in the service sector. It is not true that I have no idea about the workers of the establishment which I visited on 16/8/21. The company gave us the impression during our visit that they provide cellular mobile services to their workers and operate Polli Phone operations. I don’t know what Grameen Telecom workers do in particular, what they do in mobile phone and Polli Phone after sales service. We visit and observe the terms and conditions of employment of the workers and other record registers of the establishment. We did not see what kind of work the workers were engaged in. There was no detailed mention in the documents that the workers do not work in one place but go to different places to work. It is not true that I was not in 5 member team so I have no knowledge and idea about it. It is not true. It is not true that according to the order dated 12/8/21, the Department of Inspection of Factories and Institutions did not send me to visit Grameen Telecom, or if it had been sent, it would have given me a specific idea about the structure, operations and the details of what kind of work the workers do. I was given a general idea of the institution to visit. The general impression was that Grameen Telecom carries out Cellular mobile services and the after sales service of Polli Phone.

A checklist is made of the things that are observed during the actual inspection. It is not true, if my company sends an inspection to an organisation, the inspector is sent with a clear idea about the management authority, business type, building information, workers’ health risks, social security, etc. Sent to gather clear ideas. With a clear understanding of the truth, the organisation sends inspectors to see if there are any violations. I don’t know if Finland is the manufacturing country of Nokia handsets. After- sales service of Grameen Telecom Nokia handsets i.e. if the SIM is lost after the set is delivered to the customer, then the SIM will be delivered quickly, if the set is damaged due to logical reasons, the set will be replaced for minor repair work, etc. Grameen Telecom provides salary and allowances to all the workers who work in the after sales service from the signature revenue, in the same way, the activities of Grameen Telecom’s Polli Phone project will be paid from Grameen Phone after receiving 10% revenue from Grameen Phone. I lied that I don’t know the truth even though I know everything because I have passed my master’s degree and have worked for 6 years in the Department of Factory and Establishment Inspection and have visited more than 500 establishments. True I am a competent inspector and know everything about inspection so the company sent me to testify. I broke the oath of truth and concealed information and gave false testimony. I filled up the checklist’s first page first section of general information on the management authority first page first section registration, second page manpower information, page 4 section 7 related to working hours and holidays, section 8 information related to wages, section 11 organisation related and filled in the last page containing necessary records, register parts during the inspection of the information. I do not remember at this point that I filled out and signed the checklist before or after giving the checklist to the plaintiff defendant. It is not true that I have not told the truth that I have filled the first part and some other parts of the checklist. I gave false testimony not true. When the checklist (Exhibit 4) was given by the plaintiff to the defendant, column 6, column 8, column 9, column 10, column 11 and the last column (examination during inspection, records required for audit, registers) and column 2 completely unfulfilled was not true. In Checklist (Exhibit 4) filled columns other than column no. 1 and column no. 4 were partially filled not true. It is not true that only part No. 1 of column No. 3 of the checklist was filled in or Column No. 4 Nos. 1, 2 and 7 were sequentially filled in or only

4 no. row of column 5 was filled or rows 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of column 7 were not filled or row 2 of column 9 was filled or row 1 of column 10 was filled as ‘0’. In the check list only the signature of the plaintiff SM Arifuzzaman was present and no signature date of any inspector was written which is not true when the check list was given by the plaintiff to the defendant. After giving a copy of the Exhibit 4 submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, we the remaining 4 inspectors, I Mizanur Rahman, inspector Enamul Haque, inspector Hadiuzzaman, inspector Tariqul Islam, in the absence of the defendants and without their knowledge, we signed under the signature of the plaintiff by fraudulently tampering with them for dishonest purposes and Attached date 16/8/21 or made fraudulently so called inspection checklist with only his seal under the plaintiff’s signature or filled in the incomplete parts of the checklist is not true. Exhibit 4 Checklist is only the plaintiff Arifuzzaman as the Chairman/Management of the defendant company of the said case with the manager/director on last 19/8/21 under the notice as per rules and regulations signed by the plaintiff on 19/8/21 below the notice or in the notice dated 19/8/21 we 4 inspectors Mizanur Rahman, Tariqul Islam, Hadiuzzaman, It is not true that Enamul Haque has created the fraudulent notice by signing fraudulently and fraudulently on the left side of the plaintiff’s signature. It is not true that in the end part of the notice dated 19/8/21 in the part of the copy, in haste next to the signature of the plaintiff, we have not signed the other 4 inspectors or the criminals have left their signatures of the crime. It is not known whether the Deputy Inspector General’s order dated 12/8/21 has been filed in court. It is true that after informing me about the case, my department sent me to testify. It is not true that the order dated 12/8/21 is fabricated and created later or it was created only to validate the forged notice dated 19/8/21.
Grameen Telecom has been appointed on contractual basis. There is no provision in the Bangladesh Labour Act that contract based employment can be given. Section 4(1) of the Labour Act deals with classification of workers. (a) Trainee (b) Transferee (c) Temporary (d) Temporary (e) Apprentice (f) Assistant (g) Seasonal worker. Not true Among these categories, except the “permanent” category, all other positions are contractual. True According to section 4(1), the mentioned 7 categories of workers are entitled to the protection of the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments. Other categories except permanent workers get protection according to their categories. All the workers in various government projects are also entitled to remedies
under labour laws. Workers engaged in projects under government and semi- government organisations are entitled to the protection of Labour laws as contractual workers. Section 4(1) states that the remaining 6 categories of workers except permanent workers will get the benefit of Labour law. It is not true that Grameen Telecom’s contractual employment is against the law. In response to our notice dated 9/3/20 dated 1/3/20 and to our notice dated 19/8/21 dated 29/8/21, Grameen Telecom clearly stated: Grameen Telecom is a not for profit company created under Section 28 of the Act, It is true that all officers/employees of the organisation have been appointed on contractual basis as per the appointment rules of the organisation. It is true that, in the reply dated 29/8/21 it is said that the workers have been given ID cards. Even if the employment is not made permanent at the end of the probationary period, they will be considered as permanent workers after the specified period. Since the Labour Act does not prohibit or prohibit contractual employment, Grameen Telecom has appointed all workers under its contractual employment as permanent workers for the duration of the contract. Since the Labour Act does not say that contractual employment cannot be given, nor is it prohibited or illegal, Grameen Telecom has appointed all the workers under its contractual employment as permanent workers up to the fixed period of the contract or the contract and renewal of the workers are renewed at the same time as the contract of Grameen Telecom is not true. It is not true that contractual employment of Grameen Telecom workers is illegal as it cannot be shown that it is illegal in terms of any law, therefore contractual employment of Grameen Telecom workers is not illegal. It is true that in section 3 of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 mentions the company’s own employment rules. It is true that Grameen Telecom as per their own employment rules and provides earned leaves to the workers. Their employment rules are not legally approved by the Inspector General. Grameen Telecom had sent to the Inspector General on 28/2/18 for the approval of employment rules to the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Institutions Grameen Telecom has stated the truth in its reply dated 9/3/20. It is true that it was also sent on 25/8/21. The Inspector General will take action within 90 days of receipt of the certificate. I do not know whether the Inspector General has taken such measures. It is not true that my organisation according to the article 3(2) of the Labour act is not the failure of the Department of Inspection of Factories and Establishments to take legal action in view of the letter dated 28/2/18 and 25/8/21 or it is not the failure of Grameen Telecom. It is not true that according to the constitution, we violated the constitutional rights of Grameen Telecom by withholding the employment rules of Grameen Telecom as per the Labour Act. I do not know whether Grameen Telecom has been informed that Grameen Telecom’s employment rules cannot be approved. It is true that I have appeared for evidence and cross-examination as directed by the court. Having received the notice of the court, I have come to testify with the approval from higher authority. I have come to testify in the institution’s case. I have been informed about the case from the institution. It is not true that on 09/01/24 25/8/21 I lied in the statement that I did not know what my organisation had done about the letter. It is true what I testify on oath. Giving false testimony that is not true or concealing the subject matter of the case that my organisation informed me about. Before the filing of the case i.e. on 28/2/18, after the employment rules were given for approval, as it was not approved within 90 days, it will be legally assumed that my organisation has approved it. As per the terms and conditions, Grameen Telecom has been operating as a permanent worker since inception or there is no violation of law in this regard.
Section 117(7) mentions that if a worker applies for accrued leave, the leave shall be added as additional leave to the limit specified in sub- sections 5 and 6 unless the employer signs the sanction. To avail true earned leave, the worker has to apply. I don’t know if any worker of Grameen Telecom has complained to my organisation about earned leave. I did not come to know about this from my superiors when I came to testify. It is not true that I don’t know whether Grameen Telecom pays earned leave to its workers as per law or I could not give correct answer or I have given false answer. It is true that the charges levelled against Grameen Telecom are criminal offences. It is not true that in section 4 (7) (8), 117, 234 regarding offences are present in Chapter Nineteen of the Labour Act. Nowhere in this chapter 283-316 does section 4 (7) (8), 117, 234 deal with offenses or is not mentioned in this section. It is not true that me and other fellow inspectors not knowing the Labour act have prosecuted the matters under section 4(7) (8),117,234 as an offense without taking into account that it is not an offense or a punishable offense or even if Grameen Telecom does not make its workers permanent as per 4 (7) (8) it will not be considered as an offence. Or the remedy is given in section 117 so even if earned leave is not paid it will not be an offense or what I have said about section 234 is not an offense because the remedy is given in section 236 or section 47) (8), 117, 234 of the Labour Act will not be an offence. If it is necessary to take instructions from the court first for the maintenance or if the maintenance is not done according to the order of the court, it will be a crime. I do not know whether any direction has been sought from the court to seek remedy for non- compliance with the provisions of the said section before filing the case. Not true I and my organisation are well aware that failure to comply with the provisions of Section 4(7) (8) 117,234 is not a crime as there is a remedy and despite knowing that it is necessary to take the direction of the court, I filed the case without taking the direction of the court or these three sections have

despite not having any offence under the three acts filed a false case under the pressure of superiors or undermined the rights of the court without seeking the direction of the court or have no right to redress in the said case or the witness given against the defendants is false, fabricated and baseless”.
During the argumentative hearing Mr. Khorshed Alam and Syed Haider Ali, the learned lawyers for the state, submitted that the Labour Inspector, empowered by the Inspector General of the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments, brought a case against 04 defendants for violating the Labour law. Against the defendants, the workers/employees of the establishment have not been regularized as per the provisions of the law at the end of their apprenticeship period, payment of annual leave with wages, encashment of leave and encashment of leave as per the provisions of the law, workers’ participation fund and welfare fund not constituted and allegation is that the deposit of 5% of net dividends not paid in the specified rate (80:10:10:) to the fund constituted under the said two funds and Sramik Kalyan Foundation Act, 2006. According to section 4 (7) (8) of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, 117,234 and Bangladesh Allegation of violation of Rule 107 of the Labour Rules 2015 is framed under Sections 303(e) and 307 of the Act. . He further submitted that there is no bar in filing both civil and criminal cases on account of the said violation. He in this regard reported in 63 DLR(AD) 79 Khandaker Abul Bashar Vs. State referred to the litigation decision. He also mentioned that since Grameen Telecom’s own employment rules have not been approved by the Inspector General as per Section 03 of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, it has no scope to provide effective contractual employment. 04 oral witnesses have been presented from the state side, they have given evidence supporting the case of the state side properly, they have been cross- examined by the opposite side, but no contrary evidence has come out. They have been cross- examined by the opponent but no evidence to the contrary has come. Claiming that the state party has been able to prove the crime against the accused beyond doubt, they have sought maximum punishment for the accused.
Mr. Abdullah Al Mamun, learned counsel for the defendant submitted during the argument that the plaintiff has no jurisdiction to file the suit and the suit has not been filed under Section 319(5). There is a legal entity of Grameen Telecom but Grameen Telecom is not a party to the said suit but persons are included as defendants who are not actively involved in the running of the affairs of Grameen Telecom and the allegations levelled against said accused have not been specifically stated in the plaint and in the plaint

there is no element of violation of the Section 303(e) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and the suit is not maintainable at all.
The learned counsel further submitted that the cause of action arose on 09/02/2020 but since the suit was filed on 09/09/21, the suit is barred under Section 214 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006.
The learned counsel referred to the complaint alleging violation of Sections 4(7) (8), 117, 234 and Rule 107 but the petition did not describe any offense in that regard and the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence.
He also mentioned that there is no permanent job structure in Grameen Telecom, it hires workers on contract basis. Grameen Telecom operates on the basis of contract with Polyphone operations and Nokia phones and along with extension of contract with Polyphone and Nokia, the term of employment contract of workers is extended and benefits of permanent workers are provided to workers as per Grameen Telecom’s own employment rules and Grameen Telecom Companies Act, The not for profit company registered under section 28 of 1994 and its members have no opportunity to receive any profit from the third Labour company. Moreover, in case of any violation of Sections 4 (7) and 4 (8), 117, 234, there is a civil remedy in that case, the criminal case is not maintainable. Defendants have not violated the provisions of Bangladesh Labour Act, 4(7), (8), 117, 234 of 2006 and Rule 107 of Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015 and they are not entitled to punishment under Sections 303(e) and 307 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and the oral witnesses presented by the State have failed to corroborate each other properly and the State parties have not been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt by presenting adequate evidentiary evidence.
The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 defendant Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus mentioned that Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus has built more than 50 social institutions including Bangladesh Grameen Bank. He has no shares of his own in any company. So no dividend goes into his pocket. Whenever he saw a social problem of the country’s poor, he made a business model to solve it. Rural education is made for education problems, rural welfare is made for health problems. Allow sufficient time for

such business ideas or models. But he has never involved himself in ownership. There is no land, car or house in his name anywhere in the country or abroad. He is a Nobel laureate and an internationalist who has earned worldwide respect for his fight against poverty. He is a law abiding Bangladeshi citizen, the charges levelled against him are conspiratorial and he has not committed any such crime. Claiming that the case was brought to defame him, he prayed for the acquittal of all the accused including Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the learned counsel presented the following precedents during the hearing of arguments.

The evidence presented in the case is corroborative, the statements of the learned strategists of both sides and the law and precedents presented by them and during the examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is noted here that among the 04 defendants in this case, 01 defendant Dr. Muhammad Yunus is the only Nobel laureate of Bangladesh. All the statements presented by the learned counsel for the defendant are not particularly exaggerated. But according to the prevailing law of Bangladesh, there is no opportunity to consider other matters outside the law of the established court (Court of law). Nobel laureate Professor Dr. Muhammad Yunus was not tried in this court. Grameen Telecom Chairman, Managing Director and other 02 directors have been prosecuted for violation of Labour laws brought by the Labour inspector of the Directorate of Factory and Establishment Inspection.

An objection has been raised by the defendant that the plaintiff SM Arifuzzaman Labour Commissioner has no jurisdiction to file this suit and the suit has not been filed under Section 319(5) of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006.
A review of Section 319 (5) of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 shows that it is mentioned
“The [Inspector- General] or any of his subordinate officers empowered by him for that purpose, may file a complaint in the Labour Court against any person for any offense under the Act or any rule, regulation or scheme, in any matter within its jurisdiction.”
So the Inspector General can delegate his powers or duties to a Labour Inspector. And the empowered Labour Inspector can lodge a complaint in the Labour Court.
It is mentioned in section 313 (2) of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006
2) No Labour Court shall entertain any offense under this Act or any rule, regulation or scheme, except on the complaint of the following persons, namely:—— — (e) in the case of any other offence, [Inspector General], or any officer under them empowered for the purpose”.
So it is seen that any officer empowered for this purpose under the Inspector General has jurisdiction to file a complaint in the court.
A perusal of the writ petition states that,
“The plaintiff in this suit on behalf of the State is an Inspector empowered under Section 319(1) of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 and is entitled to exercise the said powers”.
The State Party Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Directorate of Inspection of Factories, 23-24 Kawran Bazar, Dhaka 1215 dated 24/01/2017 Notification No.-40.01.0000.101.18.002.16-76 filed by the Inspector General (Exhibit 1). In its review, it is seen that in its 3rd clause, the inspectors will exercise their powers as per section 319(5). Defendant Exhibit 1 false claim created for the purpose of this case, which is false, document created for the purpose of this case or signature given thereon.

The accused has failed to prove whether it is not the signature of the Inspector General by cross-examination of the State’s witnesses or in any other way. Although the copy of the notification was not filed by the complainant in the court at the time of filing the case, but because the copy of the notification was not filed at the time of filing of the case, there is no scope to infer that it is false or created by the necessity of the case. Because according to the interpretation (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1972, it has presumptive value.
A perusal of the evidence of the witnesses presented by the prosecution shows that PW-1, 2, 3, 4 have all stated in their evidence that they are members of the inspection team of the Office of the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments, Dhaka, pursuant to the office order dated 12/8/21. As on 16/8/21 visited the Grameen Telecom company and found the violations of the Labour Act mentioned in the complaint along with other violations and thereafter the plaintiff SM.Arifuzzaman, Labour Inspector (General) filed a complaint against the defendants.
In the above case, against the Cognizance order dated 09/09/2021, the defendant in the High Court Division of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 49766/2021 Criminal Miscellaneous Case No 49112/2021 was filed and the Honourable Court discharged the case after hearing the rule.
Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it can be concluded that the plaintiff SM Arifuzzaman has jurisdiction to file the said complaint.
Learned counsel contended that the suit was dismissed. Section 314 of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 states:
“Except as otherwise provided in this Act or any rule, regulation or scheme, no offense there under shall be triable by any Labour Court unless a complaint is made within six months of the commission of the offence”.
On review of the documents, it is seen in the petition that the defendant company during the on- site inspection on 02/2020 and 16/08/2021 of the provisions of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006

Sections 303(5) and 307 were violated thereof. There are more details in the application. During the on- site inspection of the defendant’s establishment on 09/02/2020, the inspectors found that the violations mentioned in the application along with other violations were present. Sent to the defendants for rectification. The defendant gave its reply on 09/03/2020, which was not satisfactory. On 16/8/21, the higher authority again visited the defendants’ establishment. On 19/8/2021, 7263/Reg: sent the letter by post through memo No. Dhaka. As the response provided by the defendant to the said letter is not satisfactory, the said case has been filed on 09/09/21. So it is seen that the cause of this litigation arose on 19/8/2021. The claim made by the defendant that the cause of action arose on 9/02/2020 does not appear to be reasonable and the suit appears to have been filed within the statutory period from 19/08/21.
In such circumstances, it was decided that the suit was not barred.
The learned counsel for the defendant also claimed that defendant No. 1 is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Grameen Telecom, he sometimes presides over the board meetings and there is no active participation of third party Labour in any activities of his organisation. He further claimed that defendant No. 2 Md. Ashraful Hasan has been included as managing director and defendants No. 3 and 4 Mrs. Nurjahan Begum- Director, Md. Shahjahan as directors who have not actively participated in the activities of Grameen Telecom. He also said that Md. Ashraful Hasan is not the managing director of Grameen Telecom, Mr. Md. Nazmul Islam is the managing director of Grameen Telecom, but he has not been made a defendant in the case, and there are other directors of the board of directors, but they have not been made defendants in the lawsuit, but Dr. Mohammad Yunus and his close associates are defendants.
The accused filed a written statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been mentioned in paragraph 1, “The defendant No. 1 of this case Mr. Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus is the chairman of Grameen Telecom and 03 other defendants are employed as members of the board of directors.”
In this regard, State’s oral witness PW-1 stated in his cross-examination, “My complaint is true against the company’s organisation. It is true that I have not made Grameen Telecom an individual defendant. The company/organisation I have made accused only those who are managed by them.” He

further said in the cross-examination that I made 44 accused against 2 directors and did not make other directors accused because their names appeared in the checklist”. He also said in the cross-examination, “On the first page of the truth checklist, Md. Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director is written in No. 2. It is true that the signature of Mr. Nazmul Islam as Managing Director is on page five of the Checklist. According to the trade license of the organisation, the name of Nazmul Islam has been changed to Md. Ashraful Hasan as the managing director. Therefore, Ashraful Hasan, the managing director, has been made the defendant. Amendment of trade license is dated 24/12/20. It is true I mentioned the change of name of managing director instead of change of name of taxpayer. Nazmul Islam has signed as managing director in the truth checklist and Ashraful Islam as managing director. According to the information of the organisation authorities, I have written the name of Md. Ashraful Hasan as the managing director. The opposing organisation has admitted this by signing the checklist. Those who signed the checklist gave us their names on behalf of the organisation. Nazmul Hasan has given us information about the checklist. Then I don’t understand why he himself signed as managing director. True not true Mr. Ashraful Hasan as managing director is being accused as a close person of Dr. Yunus.”
A perusal of the technical list submitted by the State Party, Exhibit 4 shows that in its first part a. general information in its management authority information section

Mr. Professor Md. Yunus, Chairman
Mr. Md. Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director
Mrs. Noor Jahan Begum, Director
Mr. M. Shahjahan, Director
The name, designation and signature of the person providing the information on behalf of the managing authority is written and at the end of the checklist
Signature and seal of Md. Nazmul Islam
Sahidun Nazira Firdaus (GDL)
Nazia Afrin (GDL)
It is signed. So it is clear that the names mentioned in the information section of the management authority of the checklist have been supplied by the Grameen Telecom Authority and they have signed the checklist after supply and the checklist maker has not given the said names as per his choice.
Section 312 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 states –
“Offences by companies, etc. where an offender under this Act or any rule, regulation or scheme is a company or any other statutory body or any firm, every director, partner, manager thereof actively engaged in the conduct of its business, the Secretary or any other officer or representative, shall be deemed to have committed the said offence, unless he can prove that the offense was not committed with his knowledge or consent or that he made every effort to prevent it”.
According to the clause “unless he can prove that the crime was committed with his knowledge or consent or that he tried his best to prevent it”. So it is seen that the Burden of Proof is on the accused in that case. Although the learned counsel for the accused claimed Burden of Proof of the prosecution. But it can be seen that this section of the law has given the onus of proof on the defendant. But the defendants have not proved by cross-examination of the State witnesses or in any other way that the crimes alleged against them were not committed with their knowledge or consent or that they tried their best to prevent them.
During the examination of Article 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the above defendant, a review of the Memorandum and the Articles of Association of the submitted organisation shows that the structure, powers and functions of the board of directors are described in its Articles 33 and 34.

“33. The affairs of the GTC shall be supervised by a Board of Directors, which shall have the responsibility to determine the direction and scope of the activities of the GTC. The Board of Director shall exercise full management and financial control of the GTC. For the purpose of the Act, the Board of Directors shall be deemed to be the Directors of the GTC.
The Board of Directors, subject to the general control and supervision of the General Body, shall generally pursue and carry out the objects of the GTC as set forth in the Memorandum of Association and the Board shall be responsible for the management and administration of the affairs of the GTC in accordance with the Articles of Association and the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws made thereunder.”
It is clear from Articles 33 and 34 that the Board of Directors has complete control over the administrative and financial affairs of Grameen Telecom and the Board of Directors is responsible for the management and administrative activities of Grameen Telecom. In such circumstances, it does not appear that the defendants have any active role in the management and administrative activities of Grameen Telecom.
In view of the above discussions, in terms of Articles 33 and 34 of Grameen Telecom’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, as per the information in Exhibit 4 and the cross-examination statement of PW-1 and the written statements filed during examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused, Nos. 1-4 There is no irregularity or error in the filing of the case against the defendant and it cannot be said that the defendant No. 1-4 was not responsible for the allegations made in the case, i.e. permanent employment of the workers, annual leave with wages, guaranteeing the payment of profit to the workers. Therefore, the inclusion of Mr. Prof. Dr. Mohammad Yunus, Chairman, Md. Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director, Mrs. Noor Jahan Begum, Director, M. Shahjahan, Director as defendants in this suit appears reasonable.

The learned counsel for the defendant has claimed that Grameen Telecom has its own policy for proper operation which was sent to the Inspector General’s Office on 28/2/18 for approval. But since Grameen Telecom was not informed about this from the said office, it has again been sent for approval on 25/8/21. Moreover, the Inspector General did not inform Grameen Telecom regarding the said policy as per 3(2) of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. Learned counsel drew special attention to the “Shall” mentioned in Section 3(2) and in this regard submitted a paragraph on “Shall” of Cornell law school, 15 ScoB (2021)AD -1 Appellate Division of Bangladesh, criminal Review Petition No. 42 of 2017 reported in Ataur Mridha alias Vs. The State litigation decision, reported in 15 SCOB (2021) HCD-60 Engr. Md. Anwar Hossen –vs– Chittagong Club Ltd and Others, India: Vidarbha Industries –vs– Axis Bank: 28 November 2022.
A review of section 3 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 shows that it states,
“3. Conditions of employment (1) The employment of workers in every establishment and other expenses incidental thereto shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:
Provided that any establishment may have its own employment rules relating to the employment of workers, but no such rule shall be less favourable to any worker than any provision of this Chapter.
[Provided further that, all institutions to which this Act is not applicable shall not adopt any policy, rule, house policy with less facilities than those provided in this Act.]
(2) The employment regulations mentioned in the terms of sub- section (1) shall be submitted by the owner of the establishment to the [Inspector- General] for approval, and (the Inspector- General) shall issue appropriate orders in his opinion within [ninety days] of receipt thereof.
(3) No employment rule referred to in sub- section (2) shall be enforced without the approval of the [Inspector- General].
(4) [of the Inspector- General. Any person aggrieved by the order may file an appeal with the Government within thirty days of the receipt of the order and the Government shall dispose of the appeal within 45 (forty five) days of the receipt of the said order and the order of the Government shall be final on this appeal.”
During the hearing of arguments, the State party informed that a letter from the Department of Inspection of Factories and Establishments Memorandum No. Sarabi701.0000.102.22.066.18.843 dated 08 March 2018 entitled: “Regarding the approval of rules relating to recruitment of staff of Grameen Telecom” “In view of the above matter and the attached letter, it is to be informed that the employment regulations received from Grameen Telecom have not been enacted in accordance with the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and the Bangladesh Labour Regulations, 2015. The employment regulations shall be as per the instructions of Form-1 of Bangladesh Labour Regulations 2015. In such a situation, it was requested to prepare and submit the employment regulations of Grameen Telecom to this office as per the instructions of Form-1 of Bangladesh Labour Regulations 2015.” Submitted a copy of a letter to the effect. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the said letter was sent to the defendant institution without any acknowledgment of receipt or signature. Moreover, the learned counsel for the defendant claims that the evidence submitted by the state side has not been identified and has no evidentiary value after being presented before the court as per the rules.
On perusal of the documents it is seen that oral witnesses of the State PW-1,2,3,4 all in reply to the cross-examination of the accused, in view of Grameen Telecom’s letters dated 28/2/18 and 25/8/21 Directorate of Factories and Institutions Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 A 3(2)) whether they have taken action under section 121.24 is not known by them.

All the witnesses have denied the suggestion of the accused that they have given false testimony knowing the said matter.
In view of Grameen Telecom’s letters dated 28/2/18 and 25/8/21 whether the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments has taken action as per section 3(2) of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 i.e. has the Inspector General taken any action regarding the employment rules of Grameen Telecom? If Grameen Telecom could not be informed about that matter, Grameen Telecom had the opportunity to know it through the court in this case. But Grameen Telecom did not subpoena any record or make any other arrangements to present it before the court. Without ascertaining the action taken by the Inspector General, no rational reason can be found to hold that their appointment rules were approved by the Inspector General. 3 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and the review of the decision submitted by the defendants, it does not appear that if the Inspector General does not issue an order regarding the employment rules, there is an opportunity to presume that it is approved.
Furthermore it is mentioned in section 3(3),
(3) Without the approval of the [inspector general] no service rule referred to in sub- section (2) can be brought into effect.
Therefore, as the defendant failed to prove before the court that the employment rules of Grameen Telecom have been approved by the Inspector General, there is no opportunity to enforce the employment rules of Grameen Telecom as per Section 3(2) of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006.
The first allegation against the defendants in the writ petition was that the workers/employees of the establishment were not regularized at the end of the apprenticeship period as per the provisions of law which is in violation of Section 4(7) and (8) of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006.
Section 4 of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 regarding apprenticeship period of workers

“(1) Based on the type and nature of work, the workers employed in an establishment may be divided into the following categories,
(a) under education;
(b) transfer;
(c) temporary;
(d) temporary;
[(e) apprentice;
(f) permanent; And
(g) Seasonal Labourers.” and
In 4 (7) of Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 it is mentioned
“A worker shall be termed a permanent worker if he is employed in an establishment on a temporary basis and has satisfactorily completed his education in the establishment.”
And Section 4(8) mentions
“The period of apprenticeship for any Labourer engaged in clerical work shall be six months and for other Labourers the period shall be three months:
Provided, however, that in the case of a skilled workman, his period of apprenticeship may be extended by three months If for any reason it is not possible to determine the quality of his work during the first three months of apprenticeship:
Provided further that, even if the confirmation letter is not issued at the end of the apprenticeship period or at the end of the extension of three months, the worker concerned shall be deemed to be permanent as per the provisions of sub- section (7).]”
From the pattern of cross-examination of the State’s witnesses by the defendant, it is found that Grameen Telecom employs the workers on contract basis as per its own employment rules. Agreement with Grameen Telecom Polyphone operations and Nokia phones

works on the basis and along with the extension of the contract with Polly Phone and Nokia, the contract period of the workers is extended and the benefits of permanent workers are provided to the workers as per Grameen Telecom’s own recruitment rules, moreover, the accused party has mentioned in the written statement during the examination of section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. , “As Grameen Telecom does not have any permanent operations, its main function is to provide contractual Polly Phone operations and after- sales service of Nokia mobile handsets. Polly Phone operations are carried out through contracts with Grameen phone and are renewed every 03 (three) years, Polly Phone is a telecom project operated by Grameen Telecom in Bangladesh on a contractual basis under the direction of Grameen phone in return for which Grameen Telecom receives 10% revenue share from Grameen phone and extends the contract period after 3 years.” He also mentioned that “the agreement period is 3 years which is being renewed every year. Under both these contracts, the employees and officers appointed in their capacity as per Grameen Telecom Act are appointed on contractual basis. As a result, under this contractual appointment, all the workers and employees get all the benefits like permanent workers such as promotion, regularization, pay- scale, gratuity, provident fund, earned leave, medical allowance and etc. Since all the activities of Grameen Telecom Contractual, therefore they are appointed contractually as per the provisions of law.”
In his written statement he also said that “the organization which has no permanent activities cannot appoint anyone as a permanent worker. As a result, since Grameen Telecom has no permanent activities, all its employed workers and officials are contractually appointed employees- officers under the contractual activities, but they are permanent employees.” According to the Labour law workers get all the benefits.
Since Grameen Telecom does not have any permanent operations and its business activities are conducted on the basis of contracts with various parties, when the work is being contracted, manpower has to be employed in the light of the required/special skills and qualifications as per the type of business for which Grameen Telecom employees are appointed and is contractually given.”

Exhibit 3 perusal shows that the reply sent by Grameen Telecom on 09/03/2020 by Mr. Md. Tariqul Islam, Labour Inspector (General), Directorate of Factories and Institutions, Grameen Telecom has mentioned in paragraph 2 thereof,

Sequence Brief description of violation Measure taken
02 The workers are not made permanent as per the provisions of the Act. As per Grameen Telecom Recruitment Rules, all employees are appointed for 3 years and are provided with the same benefits as provident fund, gratuity earned leave, etc. as per permanent employees. This appointment is renewed every 3 years. It should be noted that the main work of Grameen Telecom is polyphone operations and after- sales service of Nokia mobile handsets. The Polyphone program is managed through a contract with Grameenphone and is renewed every 3 years. Similarly, the after sales service of Nokia handsets is governed by contract with Nokia and can be terminated by either party on 3 months’ notice as per Nokia contract. Since Grameen Telecom has no permanent operations and its business activities are conducted on the basis of contracts with various parties, when the work is being contracted, the manpower has to be employed in the light of the required/special skills and qualifications as per the type of business, therefore the recruitment of Grameen Telecom employees is given on contractual basis.

On review of Exhibit 6, it can be seen that in the reply sent by Grameen Telecom on 29/08/2021 to Deputy Inspector General, Office of Deputy Inspector General, Directorate of Factories and Institutions, Grameen Telecom has mentioned in its 2nd point:
“Section 4(7) (8) The workers/employees of the organization are not made permanent after the apprenticeship period as per the provisions of the law. In response Grameen Telecom said that the company of Grameen Telecom is a not for profit company created under section 28 of the Act. According to the prevailing recruitment rules of the organization, permanent employment is done after the apprenticeship period. Done. All officers and employees of the organization are appointed on contractual basis.”
Therefore, it is seen that there is no permanent activity in Grameen Telecom and its officers/employees are given contractual appointments according to Grameen Telecom’s own policies and there is no opportunity to make their jobs permanent, but the officers/employees of Grameen Telecom are provided with Provident Fund as permanent employees. Gratuity, earned leave, retirement leave are all provided.
Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that even if no worker is made permanent as per section 4(7) of the Bangladesh Labour law 2006, but confirmation letter is not given at the end of the apprenticeship period or at the end of 03 months extension as per section 4(8), sub- section (7) According to the provisions of this concerned worker shall be considered as permanent. But according to that law, the workers of Grameen Telecom have been considered as permanent workers i.e. they have been provided with all the privileges of permanent workers according to the Labour law, the defendant has failed to prove by presenting appropriate evidence. Rather, as admitted by the defendants, instead of providing benefits to the workers according to the Labour laws, they are providing benefits according to their own policies.
It has already been decided through discussion that Grameen Telecom employment rules are not approved by the Inspector General as per Section 3(3) of Bangladesh Labour law 2006, so there is no opportunity to implement them i.e. do no work according to the said employment rules. In that case, Grameen Telecom must comply with the Labour law and provide all the facilities and benefits stipulated in the Labour law to the workers as per the provisions of the Labour law. Do not provide benefits according to own unauthorized employment rules.

The defendant has described in the written statement that “All the organizations that are engaged in contractual work in Bangladesh also provide contractual employment. According to Section 4(1) of the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 (amended), the workers employed in any organization on the basis of the type and nature of work are 7 has been divided into categories namely: (a) Trainee, (b) Transfer, (c) Temporary, (d) Temporary, (e) Apprentice, (f) Permanent and (g) Seasonal workers. As a result, Labourers are divided into 7 categories according to the Labour law. Apart from permanent workers, the workers divided into other 6 categories are employed as contract workers in most of the private institutions”.
According to 1(4) of Bangladesh Labour law, 2006, Labour law is binding on all establishments as defined in Section 2(31) except those which are not subject to Labour law. If an organization violates the Labour law and a case is filed against it in the Labour court, the trial will be done by the Labour court. Most of the private companies in the country hire on contract basis, so there is no chance of legalization of contract based recruitment for Grameen Telecom.
According to the discussion above, Grameen Telecom Bangladesh has clearly violated Section 4(7) (8) of Labour law 2006 by not providing permanent employment opportunities to the workers as per the Bangladesh Labour law 2006.
The second allegation against the defendant in the plaint application is that the workers/employees working in the company are not paid annual leave with wages, encashment of leave and cash payment against employee leave as per law, which has violated Section 117 of Bangladesh Labour Law and Rule 107 of Bangladesh Labour Code 2015.
Section 117 of Bangladesh Labour law 2006 mentions
Annual leave with wages (Annual leave with wages)-
“Every adult worker who has completed one year’s continuous service in an establishment shall be granted leave during the next twelve months on the basis of the wages calculated for the previous twelve months’ work at the following rates, viz.

(a) in the case of any shop or trade or industrial establishment or any factory or road transport establishment, one day for every eighteen working days;
(b) in the case of a tea garden, one day for every twenty- two days of work;
(c) in the case of a newspaper worker, one day for every eleven days of work.
Section 117(5) states “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (4), an adult worker shall cease to be entitled to leave under this section when the accrued leave to which he is entitled — (a) in the case of a factory or road transport establishment, is forty days; ;
(b) in the case of any tea garden, shop or commercial or industrial establishment, sixty days.”
Section 117(6) states “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (4), a [teenage] worker shall cease to be entitled to leave under this section when the leave to which he is entitled:
(a) in the case of a factory or tea- garden, sixty days;
(b) eighty days in the case of any shop or business or industrial establishment.”
117 (7) If any worker applies for earned leave and the employer disallows the same for any reason, such disallowed leave shall be added to the concerned worker’s pay in excess of the limit specified in sub- section (5) or (6) .”
The rule 107 of Bangladesh Labour laws 2015 mentions the annual leave with wages: “(1) According to section 117 of the Labour Court, in the calculation of annual or earned leave, the days of attendance of the worker in the previous 12 (times) months shall be counted.
2) Any worker may receive cash payment against his unexpended accrued leave if he so desires.
Provided that not more than half of the leave earned at the end of the year shall be encashed and such encashment shall be made only once in a year.
(3) If a worker dies while his leave is due with wages, his leave wages shall be paid to his nominee or legal heir.”

On review of Exhibit 3, it can be seen that in the reply sent by Grameen Telecom to Mr. Md. Tariqul Islam Labour Inspector (General), Directorate of Factories and Establishments dated 09/03/2020, Grameen Telecom has mentioned in its paragraph 6:
Employees are entitled to earned leave after completion of apprenticeship and regularization and enjoy self- paid earned leave as required. Remaining leave is encashed every three years as per organization norms. Leave encashment information is stored in the sample (attached).
That is, in this case they follow the rules of the organization.
Exhibit 6 perusal shows that it is the reply sent by Grameen Telecom on 29/08/2021 to Deputy Inspector General, Office of Deputy Inspector General, Directorate of Factories and Institutions is mentioned in the 7th point by Grameen Telecom in its reply –
According to this leave policy, 1 month’s basic pay can be taken in lieu of earned leave for the first time after 06 years of contractual appointment. Thereafter, 1 month basic salary is paid against earned leave after every 03 years. However, in all these cases, a minimum of 60 days of earned leave must be accumulated. In the light of the decision of the 102nd board meeting, the existing rules have been amended and implemented from 1 January 2021 as per the provisions of the Labour law. In the light of this decision, payment against accrued leave to all is under process till 31.12.2020. Leave provisions have been introduced as per Labour law 2006 from 1 January 2021″.
Therefore, Grameen Telecom follows its own employment rules in this case as well.
The defendant has submitted a written statement during the examination of section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and mentioned in it, “The employment policy of Grameen Telecom has been prepared keeping the provision of 30 days of earned leave in a year, whereas according to the Labour law, 1 day for every 18 working days is the average annual leave in the case of Grameen Telecom. A maximum of 14 days of earned leave is generally available to all workers. That is, we are paid accrued leave at a higher rate than the benefits of the Labour law.”

He also explained that “Grameen Telecom will be able to encash 30 days of leave every 3 years and retain 60 days of leave.”
He also mentioned that “in terms of encashment of leave in the Labour law, officers and employees get 14 days per year of which 7 days will be encashed and the remaining 7 days will be accumulated. On the other hand, according to the conventional leave policy of Grameen Telecom, 30 days of leave are encashed every 3 years. That is, on an average per year 10 days monetization is taking place. In this monetization, more is given than Labour law”.
Thus, it is seen that as admitted by the defendants, they deal with the matter of leave in their own law. Does not follow Labour laws.
Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that as per section 117 (7) if a Labour applies for earned leave and the employer disallows it for any reason, the said disallowed leave shall be deemed to be the Labour concerned under sub- section (5) or (6). The above mentioned limit will be added as arrears. Therefore, if a Labour is not given leave, he has a remedy. So in this case no criminal offense has been committed by Grameen Telecom.
In this context, the learned counsel for the state submitted that, although admitted by the defendants, Grameen Telecom did not provide earned leave to the workers as per Bangladesh Labour law 2006 and settled the issue of earned leave as per their own leave policy. In that case, they have clearly violated Section 117 of the Labour law and in this case, an offense has been committed against them under both civil and criminal laws and there is no bar to trial under both laws. He cited in this regard in 63 DLR (AD) 79 Khandaker Abul Bashar Vs. State referred to the litigation decision. The decision was-
“There is no legal impediment to file a criminal case even if a civil suit is pending on the self-same allegations provided the ingredients of the offence are present”

It has already been decided through discussion that Grameen Telecom employment rules are not approved by the Inspector General as per section 3(3) of Bangladesh Labour law 2006, so there is no opportunity to implement them i.e. to do any work according to the said employment rules. In that case, Grameen Telecom must obey the Labour law and according to the provisions of the Labour law must provide all the facilities and facilities prescribed in the Labour law to the workers and cannot provide facilities according to their own unauthorized employment rules. But Grameen Telecom has not paid annual leave, encashment of leave and cash against leave to workers/employees as per Bangladesh Labour law 2006 by which they have violated Section 117 of Bangladesh Labour law and Rule 107 of Bangladesh Labour Code 2015.
The 3rd complaint against the defendants in the petition is that the Workers’ Participation Fund and the Welfare Fund have not been constituted and 5% of the net dividend has not been deposited in the said two funds at the ratio (80:10:10:) fixed by the Workers’ Welfare Foundation Act 2006. By which Bangladesh Labour law 2006, Section 234 has been violated.
It is mentioned in the Section 234 of the Bangladesh Labour law 2006, Establishment of participation fund and welfare fund (Establishment of participation fund and welfare fund)-
(1) “This section applies to every company which —
(a) establish a Labour Participation Fund and a Workers Welfare Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter within one month from the date of coming into force of this Chapter; And
[(b) within the first nine months of the end of each year, the owner shall contribute five percent (5%) of the net profit of the previous year in the ratio of 80:10:10 respectively to the Participation Fund, Welfare Fund and Bangladesh Workers Welfare Foundation Act, 2006 under Section 14 of the Act, 2006 The Workers Welfare Foundation set up under the Fund will provide:
Provided that if any owner, immediately before the coming into force of this provision, has contributed one percent (1%) of the net profits of the company to the Welfare Fund, the Board of Trustees shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the amount deposited in the Welfare Fund to the aforementioned Workers Welfare Foundation will be obliged to pay the deposit to the fund.

(2) The said [funds] under sub- section (1) (b) shall be deemed to have been appropriated on the first day of the year immediately following the end of the year in which the money is provided.”
and Section 236 contains fines, recovery of money, etc
(1) Where any company or board of trustees fails to comply with the provisions of section 234, the Government may, by order, within such time as may be specified in the said order, issue directions for the execution of the act in accordance with the relevant provisions.
(2) If any company or board of trustees fails to perform any function within the prescribed time in accordance with an order made under sub- section (1), the Government shall, by order, make every director, manager or management of that company directly or indirectly liable. Impose a fine not exceeding 01 (one) lakh on the concerned officer or, as the case may be, the chairman, member of the concerned board of trustees or the person or persons assigned to manage it and in case of continued failure, a further fine of 05 (five) thousand for every day after the first date of failure. may direct payment of the total amount of penalty within the next 30 (thirty) days;
Provided that if any person repeatedly contravenes or fails to comply with the said provisions, he shall be liable to double penalty.
7) If the amount payable under section 234 remains unpaid and the penalty imposed under this section is not paid within the date specified in the relevant order, the said unpaid amount and penalty shall be deemed to be a public demand and shall be subject to the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (Act No 1X of 1913) shall be recoverable in accordance with its provisions.
(8) Any person aggrieved by any order under sub- sections (1) and (2) may, within 30 (thirty) days of the said order, submit an application to the Government for reconsideration thereof, and after receipt of such application the Government shall not exceed forty- five (45)) will review the matter within days: pass appropriate orders and inform the concerned person, company or board of trustees.

(5) The order passed by the Government under sub- section (4) shall be deemed to be final.]
On review of exhibit-3, it can be seen that in the reply sent by Grameen Telecom to Mr. Md. Tariqul Islam Labour Inspector (General), Directorate of Factories and Institutions on 09/03/2020, Grameen Telecom has mentioned in paragraph 8 thereof:
“Grameen Telecom is a company created under Section 28 of the Companies Act, 1994 and therefore the WPPF is not applicable to Grameen Telecom. The matter is now pending in court and further action will be taken subject to judgment.”
On review of exhibit-6, it is seen that it is the reply sent by Grameen Telecom on 29/08/2021 to Deputy Inspector General, Office of Deputy Inspector General, Directorate of Factories and Institutions in its 8th point Grameen Telecom mentioned –
It is restricted under the section 28 of the Grameen Telecom act of 1994. Not for profit company whose profits are not distributable. In the present context therefore WPPF has no applicability to rural telecom. It is to be noted here that a total of 107 officers and employees in Gramin have filed a case against the organization for the benefits of WPPF. The cases are currently pending before the 3rd Labour Telecom Court. The welfare fund has not been constituted as per the approved method and 5% of the net dividend has not been deposited in the fund constituted under the two Funds and Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10).
The welfare fund has not been constituted as per the approved method and 5% of the net dividend has not been deposited in the fund constituted as per the two funds and Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10:).
The defendant has submitted a written statement during the examination of section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has mentioned in it that the company established under section 28 of the Gramin Telecom Company Act is not eligible for distribution of dividends, so there is no scope for 5% WPPF of the net dividend. However, the Grameen Telecom Employees Union filed cases in the Labour Court at different times to get the said money. WPPF was not constituted as the case was pending.

Grameen Telecom not for profit company is not observed anywhere in the Memorandum and Articles of Association filed by the defendants but in its paragraph 71 it is said about the profit of Grameen Telecom. Also, Section 28 of the Companies Act does not exempt any company from paying profits to workers. Therefore, since Grameen Telecom makes a profit, the said profit is due to the worker in proportion to the section 234 of the Labour law; But Grameen Telecom has violated Section 234 of Labour law 2006 by not providing it for the welfare of the workers.
In view of the above overall discussion, it is clearly evident that Grameen Telecom has violated the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 Sections 4 (7), 4 (8), 117, 234.
Now let’s see whether the defendants have committed an offense punishable under Sections 307 and 323(e) of the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 for violating the said Labour law?
The learned lawyer for the government defendant submitted during the hearing of the argument that even if the confirmation letter is not given at the end of the apprenticeship period as per Section 4(8) of the Labour law, the concerned worker will be considered as permanent as per Sub Section 8. So there is no opportunity to file a direct criminal case as there is a civil remedy. He further submits that if any worker applies for earned leave and the employer disallows the same for any reason, the said ungranted leave shall be added to the worker concerned in excess of the limit specified in sub- section (5) or (6) of section 117. . In this case too, there is no opportunity to file a direct criminal case as there is a civil remedy. The learned counsel further submitted that as per Section 236 of the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006, where any company or board of trustees fails to comply with the provisions of Section 234, the Government may, by order, direct it to perform the work in accordance with the relevant provisions within the time specified in the said order. can provide and fails to perform any work within the prescribed time as per the order given, the Government, by order, every director, manager of the said company or the concerned officer directly or indirectly responsible for its management or, as the case may be, the chairman of the concerned board of trustees, member or A fine of not more than 01 (one) lakh rupees and in case of continued failure, an additional penalty of 05 (five) thousand rupees for every day after the first date of failure, and order to pay the total amount of the penalty within the next 30 (thirty) days. can provide; Provided that any person who repeatedly contravenes or fails to comply with the said provision shall be liable to a double penalty and if the amount payable under section 234 remains unpaid and the penalty imposed under this section is not paid within the date specified in the relevant order, the said unpaid amount and fines shall be

considered government claims and shall be recoverable in accordance with the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (Act No 1x of 1913). Therefore, in this case too, there is a civil remedy, so there is no scope for filing a criminal case. He also submitted that in this case there is no opportunity to file a case directly under section 307. First, if an order is received from the court by filing a civil case and the said order is not implemented, then a case can be filed under section 307. He referred to the decision of Sayeed Ahmed Chowdhury and others vs SM Zahidul Islam (Zahid) & anr reported in 63 DLR (2011) and 4 CLR(AD) (2016) SM Zahidul Islam (Zahid) -vs- Syed Ahmed Chowdhury decision.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the State submitted that both civil and criminal offenses have been committed under the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006. In that case, the worker can file a civil case for recovery of dues and the Labour inspector will file a case for criminal offences. There is no bar from both civil and criminal litigation based on the same incident. He cited in this regard in 63 DLR (AD) 79 Khandaker Abul Bashar Vs. State referred to the litigation decision.
307 of Government Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 states:
“307. Penalty for other offences- If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation or scheme, and unless any other penalty is provided therein, he shall be liable to a fine which may extend to [twenty five thousand] rupees.”
On perusal of documents it is seen that the Labour Inspector first visited the Grameen Telecom Company on 09/02/2020 and sent a letter on 01/03/2020 for rectification of the violation of Labour laws (Exhibit 2). In view of the said letter, Grameen Telecom gave written reply on 09/03/2020 (Exhibit 3). As the said answer was not satisfactory, the Labour inspector again inspected Grameen Telecom on 16/08/2021 and found violations of Labour law on 19/08/21 and sent a letter to Grameen Telecom on 19/08/21 specifying the time limit for rectification (Exhibit -5) Grameen Telecom replied to the said letter on 29/8/2021 (Exhibit 6). Since Grameen Telecom did not satisfactorily rectify the said violations of the Labour law, the Labour Inspector of the Directorate of Factories and Establishments has brought this lawsuit under Section 319 (5) of the Bangladesh Labour law.

Section 319 of the Bangladesh Labour law 2006 states “319. Powers and Duties of Inspector- General] etc.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, the [Inspector- General] or any [Additional- Inspector- General], [Joint Inspector- General] [Assistant Inspector- General) or [Labour Inspector) in the area under their jurisdiction, shall have the following powers or duties, namely:
(a) with necessary assistants, at any reasonable time, enter, inspect and inspect any place, yard, vessel or vehicle regarded or used as an establishment;
(b) subpoena, and seize, inspect or examine or copy any register, record, notice, certificate or other document kept under this Act or any rule, regulation or scheme;
(c) any inquiry or inspection necessary to determine whether any provision of this Act or any rule, regulation or scheme is being duly complied with in respect of any establishment or any worker employed therein;”
Therefore, it appears that the Inspector General has jurisdiction to conduct entrance inspection and examination in any institution and if any violation is observed there is no bar to lodge a complaint under Section 319 (5).
A review of the precedent submitted by the state party states that,
There is no legal impediment to file a criminal case even if a civil suit is pending on the same allegations provided the components of the offence are present”.
A review of the precedent filed by the defendants states that,
“There must be an order of the Labour Court and a person is found to be disobliged or did not comply with the order given by the Labour Court, and then can only be brought to the trial before the Labour Court which actually is like a contempt of court proceedings and can be punished under Section 307 of the Labour Act.”

A perusal of the decision submitted by the defendant also shows that in the said case, a worker had filed the case for the benefits of his employment. And this case has been filed by an empowered Labour Inspector of the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments, Office of the Deputy Inspector General, Dhaka, under Section 319(5) of the Act due to Gramin Telecom’s continuous violation of Labour laws. Therefore, the facts of the decision filed are not consistent with the facts of the case and the said decision is not applicable to the case.
In view of the above discussion, it can be seen that Grameen Telecom is not barred from suing a Labour Inspector under Section 307 for violation of Sections B(7) (8), 117, 234 of the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 and the defendants under Section 4 of the Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 (7) (8), has committed an offense punishable under section 307 due to violation of the provisions of section 117, 234.
As to whether the defendants have committed an offense punishable under Section 303(e), the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that there is no material under Section 303(e) in the writ petition and therefore the defendants have not committed any offense punishable under the said section.
Section 303(e) of the Bangladesh Labour law 2006 states,
“303(e) wilfully fails or neglects to preserve or transmit any design, list, document, register information, report or any other document required to be preserved or transmitted under this Act or any rule, rule, regulation or scheme; he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to five thousand Taka, or with both.”
On perusal of the petition it is seen that it is mentioned that a notice was issued to Grameen Telecom by the Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments on 01/03/2020 pending the inspection dated 09/02/2020 which is Exhibit 2. Grameen Telecom replied as Exhibit 3. Later on 19/08/2021, the Labour Inspector issued another notice to Grameen Telecom which is marked as Exhibit 5. The reply to the said notice was given by Grameen Telecom which is Exhibit 6. As the said reply was not satisfactory, the Labour inspector filed a case.

On perusal of Exhibit 2, it is seen that through notice dated 01/03/2020 Directorate of Inspection of Factories and Establishments advises Grameen Telecom that the following registers are not maintained and suggested for maintenance.

Serial no. Act Clause Brief description of violation Steps taken
1 3 3, 4 Although there are own recruitment rules regarding workers/employees recruitment, it is not approved by the Inspector General. Approval must be obtained from the Inspector General regarding the institution’s own workers/employees recruitment rules
2 4 (7) The workers are not made permanent as per the provisions of the Act. As per Grameen Telecom Recruitment Rules, all employees are appointed for 3 years and are provided provident fund, gratuity, earned leave etc.
3 5 19 (8, 5) According to the rules, the employment letter and photo ID of the employees are not provided as per Form-6. According to the rules, the employees should be provided with appointment letter and photo ID as per Form-6.
4 6, 7, 8 20, 21 Service book is not arranged for the employees as per rules. Service book should be prepared by entering all the information of the employees.
5 108 (3) 102 (4) According to form-34 daily attendance and rights of workers/employees Job register is not maintained. According to form-34 daily attendance and rights of workers/employees Job register has to be maintained.
6 117 107 Half of the accrued leave is not encashed at the end of the year and related Registers are not saved. Encashment of half of accrued leave at the end of the year and registers in respect thereof to be maintained.
7 10, 115, 116, 117 24 Workers are not granted leave as per law and registers are not maintained. Workers must be granted leave and registers maintained in accordance with the law.
8 234 Participation Fund and Welfare Fund are not constituted and 5% of the net dividend is not deposited in the said two funds and the fund constituted under the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10:). Participation fund and welfare fund have not been constituted and 5% of the net dividend has to be deposited in the said two funds and the fund constituted under the Workers’ Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10:).
9 272 Though as per company policy weekly 2 days off are allotted by office order those who are involved in customer care service are given 1 weekly day off instead of 2 weekly day offs. Those who are involved in Grameen telecom customer care service are mentioned to be allotted 1 day of weekly leave which is clear violation of Bangladesh Labour law 2006 (Observe code of act 336).

And at the end of the notice it is mentioned:
“You are requested to report the above violations to this office within 07 (seven) days of receipt of said letter. Failure to do so without any further correspondence can lead to complaints being filed in the honourable Labour court against you.”
01 Although there are own recruitment rules regarding workers/employees recruitment, it is not approved by the Inspector General. Grameen Telecom has its own policy for smooth running of operations which has been sent to the Inspector General’s office for approval dated 28/2/2018 (Letter Source: GTC/Admin & HR/2018-149, Subject: Grameen Telecom regarding approval of its own recruitment rules regarding recruitment of staff) Done (copy of letter attached). However, till now we have not been informed anything from the said office. In view of receiving your letter today, if we contact the attached office of the Inspector General again today, they have informed us that they will inquire about the progress of this matter. You will be informed as soon as information is available from the concerned office of the Inspector General.
02 The workers are not made permanent as per the provisions of the Act. As per Grameen Telecom recruitment rules all employees are appointed for 3 years and same as permanent employees, provident fund, gratuity, holiday, etc. are provided. This employment contract is renewed every 3 years. Note that Grameen Telecom’s main business is polyphone operations and providing after- sales service for Nokia mobile handsets. The Polly Phone program is managed through a contract with Grameen phone and is renewed every 3 years. Similarly, Nokia. The after sales service of the handset is managed through contract with Nokia and can be terminated by either party on 3 months’ notice as per Nokia contract. Since Grameen Telecom has no permanent operations and its business activities are conducted on the basis of contracts with various parties, when the contract is made for the work, manpower has to be employed in the light of the required/special skills and qualifications, therefore, Grameen Telecom employees are appointed on contract basis.
03 According to the rules, the employment letter and photo ID of the employees are not provided Grameen Telecom employees are provided with appointment letter (specimen attached) and photo ID (specimen attached) as per organization rules.
04 Service book is not arranged for the employees as per rules. Arrangements have already been made for this (sample attached).
05 According to form-34 daily attendance and overtime of workers/employees Job register is not maintained. Daily attendance of workers is collected automatically through Attendance software (sample attached) and using attendance book. Overtime sheets are used for drivers and messengers (sample attached).
06 Half of the accrued leave is not encashed at the end of the year and related Registers are not saved. After regularization following completion of apprenticeship, employees are entitled to – earned leave and enjoy self- paid earned leave as needed. Remaining leave is encashed every three years as per organization norms. Information regarding leave encashment is preserved (sample attached).
07 Workers are not granted leave as per law and registers are not maintained. A casual leave of 20 days is granted every year. Also, employees get 30 days of earned leave for every year after completion of Bong Apprenticeship and regularization. Maternity leave is provided for 4 months. Note that leave information is stored properly (sample attached).
08 Participation Fund and Welfare Fund are not constituted and 5% of the net dividend is not deposited in the said two funds and the fund constituted under the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10:). Grameen Telecom is a company created under section 28 of the Companies Act, 1994 does not have a dividend provision and therefore the WPPF is not applicable to Grameen Telecom. The matter is now pending in court and further action will be taken subject to the verdict.
09 Though as per company policy weekly 2 days off are allotted, by office order those who are involved in service department are given 1 weekly day off instead of 2 weekly day offs. Weekends are fixed according to the nature and importance of work of different branches/departments of the company. For this purpose, 1 day weekend has been kept for the service department giving priority to customer service
On perusal of Exhibit 5, it is seen that in the notice dated 19/08/21, the Department of Inspection of Factories and Establishments has said about the register attached-
Violation clause and rules Summary of Labour law violations Action plan for implementation/revision Correction period
Act 03 rule 03 The establishment has service rules regarding employment of workers/employees which are not approved by the Inspector General of Factories and Establishment Inspection. An application should be made to the Inspector General of Factories and Establishment Inspection regarding the correct process of recruitment of workers/employees of the establishment. 10 days
Act 4(7)(8) The workers/employees working in the establishment are not regularized as per the provisions of law at the end of the apprenticeship period. The workers/employees working in the organization should be permanently appointed from the date of joining the service as per the provisions of law. 07 days
Act 5 rule 19 All workers/employees of the institution were not given letter of employment as per 19(4) of Bangladesh Labour laws, 2015 and identity card was not issued as per Form No. 6 of Bangladesh Labour laws, 2015 All workers/employees have to be issued identity card as per Form No. 6 of Bangladesh Labour laws, 2015 and letter of employment as per 19(4) of Bangladesh Labour laws, 2015 and registered and stored as per form 6(a). 07 days
Act 06 rule 20, 21 As per Form No. 7 of Bangladesh Labour laws, 2015, service books of workers/employees are not maintained. According to Form No. 7 of Bangladesh Labour laws 2015, the service book of workers/employees must be maintained. 07 days
Act 9(1) rule 23 Workers/employees registrar not maintained as per Form No. 8 of Bangladesh Labour laws 2015. Workers/Employees registrar must be reserved as per Form No. 8 of Bangladesh Labour laws 2015. 07 days
Act 46, 47, 48 rule 38, 39 No information/register is maintained regarding maternity care facilities for women workers/employees working in the establishment. Women working in the organization – to maintain register of benefits for maternity care of workers/employees and to provide maternity care benefits where applicable. 07 days
Act 117 rule 107 In the institution payment of all workers/employees including annual leave with wages, encashment of leave and non- cash payment against leave as per the provisions of the Labour/Employees Act. Workers/Employees in the institution shall be paid annual leave along with wages, encashment of leave and cash payment against leave as per the provisions of law. 07 days
Act 234 Participation Fund and Welfare Fund are not constituted and 5% of the net dividend is not deposited in the said two funds and the fund constituted under the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10:). Participation Fund and Welfare Fund are not constituted and 5% of the net dividend has to be deposited in the said two funds and the fund constituted under the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10:). 10 days

And he mentioned at the end of the notice:
“To note that on 01 March 2020 letter No. 3982/U: Maha: P:/Dhaka has been sent to you/your organization for implementation of violation of Labour law. But the progress of implementation of the violated clauses and rules mentioned in the letter has not been noticed so far.
In this case, regarding the progress of implementation of the said violations by next 31.08.2021. The relevant records/registers are requested to be produced in the department as per Section 319 (3) of Bangladesh Labour law, 2006 (Amended, 2018). Your/your cooperation in implementation of Bangladesh Labour Law is highly desired. Failure to do so, legal action may be taken against you/you.”
On perusal of Exhibit 6 it is seen that Grameen Telecom has provided the reply
Serial no. Violation clause and rules Brief description of violation Steps taken
01 Act – 3
Rule – 3 The establishment has service rules for the recruitment of workers/employees, which are not approved by the Inspector General of Factories and Establishment Inspection. Grameen Telecom has its own policy for smooth running of operations which has been sent to the Inspector General’s office for approval dated 28/2/2018 so far we have not received any information from the said office. In view of your receipt of this letter, Grameen Telecom’s recruitment policy and related policies have been re- sent to your office on 25/08/2021 for approval (copy attached).
02 Act 4 (7)(8) The workers/employees of the establishment have not been regularized at the end of the apprenticeship period as per the provisions of law. Grameen Telecom is a Not for Profit Company created under Section 28 of the Companies Act. According to the conventional recruitment rules of the institution, all the officers and employees of the institution have been appointed on contractual basis after the apprenticeship period.
03 Act 35
Rule 19 The Labourer/employee appointment letter of the organization is not issued as per Bangladesh Labour laws 19(4) of 2015 and identity card as per Bangladesh Labour laws, 2015 form No. 6 . Every officer- employee of Grameen Telecom has been given ID card and register is being maintained in Form 6(a). 19(4) of Bangladesh Labour law, 2015 as per sample of appointment letter is given for your approval (copy attached). 6(a) Form No. being maintained in the register copy is enclosed.
04 Act 06
Rule 20, 21 According to No. 7 of Bangladesh Labour law 2015, the service of workers/employees is not reserved. Service books of officers – employees are being stored. Copy attached.
05 Act 9(1)
Rule 23 As per No. 8 of Bangladesh Labour law 2015, the register of workers/employees is not maintained. Register (copy attached) is being maintained as per Form No.8.
06 Act 46, 47, 48 Rule 38, 39 No information/register is maintained regarding maternity welfare for women workers/employees working in the establishment. Registers are being maintained regarding maternity benefits of female officers and employees working in the institution.
07 Act 117 Rule 107 Workers/employees working in the organization are not paid annual leave with wages, encashment of leave and cash payment against leave as per the provisions of law. According to this leave policy, 1 month’s basic pay can be taken in lieu of leave earned for the first time after 6 years of contractual appointment. Thereafter, 1 month basic salary will be paid against earned leave after every 3 years. However, in all these cases, a minimum of 60 days of earned leave must be accumulated. In the light of the decision of the 102nd board meeting, the existing rule has been amended and made effective from 1 January 2021 (excerpt of the board meeting is attached) as per the provisions of the Labour law. From 1 January 2021, leave provisions have been introduced as per Labour law 2006.
08 Act 234 Participation Fund and Welfare Fund are not constituted and 5% of the net dividend is not deposited in the said two funds and the fund constituted under the Funds constituted under the Foundation Act 2006 are not paid at fixed rates (80:10:10). Guarantee limited by section 28 of Grameen Telecom Companies Act, 1994. Not for profit company whose profit is not distributable
Not deliverable. The present context therefore has no applicability to WPPF rural telecom. It may be noted here that a total of 107 officers and employees of Grameen Telecom have filed a case against the organization for the benefits of WPPF. The cases are currently pending before the 3rd Labour Court. When the judgment in this case becomes final, you will be informed about it and necessary steps will be taken to implement the final judgment. It is also noted that the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh has been informed in this regard through letter GTC/MDS/2021.504 date 21/08/2021. Copy of which is attached for your information.

In this regard, I request the attached documents for your consideration.”

Thus, it can be seen that Grameen Telecom has categorically admitted in their reply that they have not preserved the documents in accordance with the Registrar of Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. By doing this, Grameen Telecom has been clearly negligent in preserving the documents according to the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 and sending them as desired by the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments. Bangladesh Labour Act is a specialized law and Grameen Telecom is an organization registered by the Directorate of Inspection for Factories and Establishments under this Law. Therefore, Bangladesh Labour Act is binding on Grameen Telecom.

When a charge was framed against the accused under section 303 (E) by the above court, the accused filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 41984 of 2023 in the High Court Division against the said order.
In view of the above discussion, the claim of the learned counsel of the defendant that there is no element of section 303 (E) in the complaint application does not appear to be reasonable and it can be concluded that the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 303 (E) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006.
In view of the above discussion, as the case is defensible, as the case did not expire, the inclusion of the defendants in this case is correct, it was decided that there were specific allegations against the accused, the accused have committed offences punishable under sections 303(E) and 307 of the labour Law 2006 by contravening the provisions of sections 4 (7)(8), 117, 234 of the labour Law 2006, as it was proved, it was decided that the State was able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond doubt. In such a situation, against the accused are Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus, Chairman, Md. Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director, Mrs. Nurjahan Begum, Director, Md. Shahjahan, Director, the allegations under sections 303 (E) and 307 for violation of sections 4 (7) (8), 117, 234 and rule 107 of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, they were sentenced to 6 (six) months imprisonment without labour for the offence of section 303 (E) of the said Law and fine of Tk 5,000 /– (five thousand), on default 10 (ten) days imprisonment without labour or penalty of Tk. 25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) for violating Section 307 or on default, it was decided to impose an additional 15 (fifteen) days’ imprisonment without labour and accordingly in light of the above decision, considering No. 1/2, 02 was disposed of.
Section 310 of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 states that “the court has the power to make certain orders:
(1) “If the owner of an establishment is punished for an offence under this Law or any rule, regulation or scheme, the court may by a written order direct him to take the action mentioned therein, in addition to the penalty, in order to eliminate the cause for which the offence has been committed, within the time specified in the order, which may be extended on the basis of any application”.
(2) “Where an order is made under sub-section (1 ), the owner of the establishment shall not be liable to continue to commit any offence referred to in that sub-section during the specified time or extended time for which he has been sentenced”.
(3) If the order made under sub-section (1) is not fully complied with within that period, then the employer, after the expiry of that period, shall be deemed to have committed further offences and for this, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to six months, or with fine of up to two thousand Taka, or with both”.
The case is filed to complain about not making the employment permanent in accordance with the provisions of the law during the probationary period of the workers, non-payment of annual leave with wages in accordance with the provisions of the law, no leave encashment and non-payment of cash against leave and not forming the Workers’ Participation Fund and Welfare Fund according to section 234 of the Act and not depositing 5% of the net dividend in the two funds and the fund formed under the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at the specified rate (80:10:10), therefore this is purely in the said interest of the workers and is a matter of great concern and since the allegations against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it has been decided as a fit case for ordering under section 310 of the Bangladesh labour Act 2006 and to make an order to remove the cause for which the offence was committed.
Therefore,
It was ordered that,
Since the allegations under sections 4 (7) 8, 117, 234 and 107 of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 under sections 303 (E) and 307against the accused Professor Dr. Mohammad Yunus, Chairman, Md. Ashraful Hasan, Managing Director, Mrs. Nurjahan Begum, Director, Md. Shahjahan, Director, Grameen Telecom, Grameen Bank Bhavan, Plot 6, Barabagh, Mirpur, Police Station: Mirpur, District: Dhaka-1216, were proved beyond doubt, they were sentenced to 06 (six) months’ imprisonment without labour and a fine of Tk 5,000 for the offence of section 303 (E) of the said Law and 10 (ten) days imprisonment without labour and for the offence of section 307, fine of Tk 25,000 (twenty five thousand) and on default, additional 15 (fifteen) days imprisonment without labour.

In addition, the accused no. 1 to 4 will make the workers /employees of Grameen Telecom permanent after the apprenticeship period with all the facilities of permanent employment as per the provisions of Bangladesh Labour Act within the next 30 (thirty) days from today, will provide annual leave with wages in accordance with the provisions of the law, encashment of leave and cash payment against leave and according to section 234 of the Act, Instructions were given to deposit 5% of the net dividend in the said two funds and the fund formed under the Workers Welfare Foundation Act 2006 at a fixed rate (80,10:10). Failing so, Section 310 (3) of the Bangladesh labour Act 2006 will come into force. Accordingly, a warrant of conviction should be issued.
The copy of the verdict should be sent immediately to the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka, the learned District Magistrate, Dhaka and the Police Commissioner, Dhaka for taking necessary action.

According to me
Typed & Revised Signature
(Sheikh Marina Sultana)
Chairman
(District and Sessions Judge)
Third labour Court, Dhaka

[signature]
Chairman

Third labour Court, Dhaka

[stamp]
Issuer
[signature]
09.01.2024
Transcriptor
Third Labour Court, Dhaka. [Stamp]
Verifier
[signature]
09.01.2024
Bench Assistant
Third Labour Court, Dhaka [Stamp]

[signature]
09.01.2024
Registrar
Third Labour Court, Dhaka