ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

Display in: French - SpanishView all

Referring also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee has also taken note of the observations by the Bangladesh Employers' Association.

1. Further to its previous comments the Committee notes that the Proclamation of 24 March 1982, whereby the Constitution was suspended, was repealed by the Constitution (Final Revisal) Order, of 10 November 1986.

The Committee notes the observations by the Bangladesh Employers' Association according to which, now that a constitutionnally elected popular Government is governing the country through the Parliament, the Ministry of Labour may like to examine, in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs, the various points raised by the Committee and send an appropriate reply.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information, including copies of relevant provisions, on the prevailing situation in law concerning constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 2. In its previous requests, the Committee observed that under sections 16 to 20 of the Special Powers Act of 5 February 1974 penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on persons who commit prejudicial acts or publish prejudicial reports, or who contravene orders for prior scrutiny and approval of certain publications or for the suspension or dissolution of certain associations, and that punishment under these provisions may involve an obligation to perform prison labour by virtue of section 53 of the Penal Code and section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that the efficacy of the Special Power Act, 1974 is questioned in political circles and that there is pressing demand in Parliament for its abolition. The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to report on the repeal or modification of the said Act so as to ensure observance of the Convention on this point.

3. In its previous requests, the Committee asked the Government to supply details concerning the practical application of the following provisions of the Penal Code (Act No. XLV of 1860) order which prison sentences involving compulsory labour may be imposed: section 124A (bringing the Government into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it); 141 to 143 (unlawful assemblies); 145, read together with 141 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (No. V of 1898) (joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly which has been ordered to disperse); 151, read together with section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (joining or continuing in any assembly of five or more persons which being likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace has been ordered to disperse); 153 (promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens); and 153B (inducing students to take part in political activity). In its report the Government once more refers to its previous statements according to which information on the practical application of these provisions is not compiled by any agency and, therefore, it is not possible to supply full information.

The Committee hopes that the Government will at least be able to provide copies of court decisions and of any by-laws and instructions adopted under the above provisions. The Committee hopes that the Government will supply the information requested.

Article 1(c). 4. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to a number of provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, the Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, and the Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment. The Committee noted that any sentences under these laws take the form of simple imprisonment and no instance has come to the notice of the Government where the court has resorted to section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 by virtue of which the court may impose either simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment, involving an obligation to work.

In its report for the period ending June 1989 the Government stated that it was not found necessary to amend legislation any further. The Committee, recalling the Government's previous indication that in practice courts did not resort to section 3(26), expressed the hope that the Government would find no difficulty in bringing legislation on this point into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

Noting that in its latest report the Government merely states that the Committee's hope has been noted, the Committee trusts that the Government will provide in its next report information on any progress achieved in this regard.

Article 1(d). 5. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1980, not only maintains those provisions which prohibit strikes in public utility services but also makes strikes illegal in various other circumstances, such as strikes by unorganised workers (sections 43 and 46(1)(b)), or where the Government has exercised its right to prohibit any strike lasting more than 30 days or, before the expiry of 30 days, any strike whose continuance is considered to be prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)). In addition, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1980, makes illegal any strikes which have not been consented upon by three-quarters of the members of the trade union or federation recognised as collective bargaining agent (section 28 of the 1969 Ordinance, as amended by section 8 of the 1980 Act, read together with sections 22, 43 and 46(1)(b) of the Ordinance). By virtue of section 57 of the Ordinance, participation in any illegal strike may be punished with imprisonment (which, as previously noted, may involve compulsory labour). The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure the observance of the Convention, either by amending the relevant sections of the Ordinance or by providing in law that rigorous imprisonment may not be inflicted upon persons who contravene the above-mentioned sections of the Ordinance.

The Committee notes that in its latest report the Government merely states that it has noted the Committee's comments.

The Committee notes the comments made by the Bangladesh Employers' Association that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was modified in 1985 and 1989; according to the BEA no further change seems necessary. The BEA considers that the Committee's comments may be taken note of, after the new labour policy is finalised and formally promulgated.

The Committee would appreciate receiving information on the new labour policy when adopted as well as a copy of a consolidated version of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (or a copy of the amendments adopted since 1985).

6. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, No. II of 1963, the Government may prohibit strikes by employees of the Government or of a local authority, inter alia, in the interest of public order, contraventions being punishable with rigorous imprisonment (involving an obligation to work). The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to bring sections 2 and 3 into conformity with the Convention.

Noting that the Government's report contains no information in this regard the Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will provide detailed information on measures taken or envisaged as concerns the above-mentioned provisions.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer