Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 340, March 2006

Case No 2188 (Bangladesh) - Complaint date: 19-MAR-02 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 21. During its last examination of the case at its June 2005 meeting [see 337th Report, paras. 23-26], the Committee had: (a) expressed its strong hope that the Appellate Division would issue a judgement in conformity with freedom of association principles confirming the High Court decision reinstating Ms. Taposhi Bhattacharjee in her job with full benefits, and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to provide it with a copy of the decision of the Appellate Division once it is issued; and (b) in respect of the warnings issued to the ten union officials, the Committee noted that it had not been provided with any further details and had once again requested the Government to give appropriate directions to the management of Shahid Sorwardi Hospital so that these warnings are withdrawn and to keep it informed in this respect.
2. 22. In a communication dated 17 June 2005, the Public Services International (PSI) confirmed that Taposhi Bhattacharjee had now received 11 months back pay but the disciplinary action process is still going on, she is being denied travel to attend PSI activities abroad and she fears threats on her life. In addition, the complainant submitted information concerning the present situation of trade union leaders of the Bangladesh Diploma Nurses Association (BDNA) in an appended list, including Manimala Biswas, Akikara Akter, Kohinur Begum, Khadabox Sarker, Delwara Chowdhury, Jasmin Uddin, Provati Das, against whom disciplinary proceedings have been started and were not withdrawn, and Sabina Yaesmin and Md. Sazzad Hossanin who were transferred by the Directorate of Nursing Services in order to victimize the trade unions leaders.
3. 23. In its communication of 31 August 2005, the Government once again states that Tapashi Bhattacharjee was reinstated in service in accordance with the decision of the High Court and that she is now availing all benefits of service according to the government rules. The Government further indicated that the appeal (civil Appellate No. 53 of 2003) was heard in part but in the midst of the hearing, the Advocate on Record had to be replaced. A new Advocate on Record was appointed on 23 July 2005 so as to continue the proceedings.
4. 24. The Committee takes note of the information that Taposhi Bhattacharjee had now received 11 months’ back pay, was reinstated in service in accordance with the decision of the High Court and that she is now availing all benefits of service according to the government rules. The Committee also takes note that the appeal of the Government is still pending before the High Court (Appellate Division). The Committee deeply regrets that over two years have elapsed since the High Court decided that Ms. Bhattacharjee was dismissed without any lawful authority and yet the appeal made against this decision by the Government has yet to be concluded. While welcoming the fact that Ms. Bhattacharjee has been reinstated pending the decision of the Court, the Committee considers that the longstanding threat that hovers over her employment status in this respect may seriously infringe upon her exercise of legitimate trade union activities. The Committee must recall in this respect that justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 56]. Given that it is the Government itself that has initiated the appeal of the High Court judgement, the Committee requests it to consider instituting an independent investigation into the dismissal of Ms. Bhattacharjee, in light of the conclusions drawn by the High Court in this matter, and envisage dropping its appeal against her reinstatement. In the meantime, the Committee reiterates its firm hope that the Appellate Division will issue a judgement in conformity with freedom of association principles confirming the High Court decision reinstating her in her job with full benefits. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any steps taken in respect of this matter and to provide it with a copy of the decision of the Appellate Division once it is issued.
5. 25. The Committee deeply regrets that since its examination of this case in 2002, the Government has not furnished any information in respect of the warnings issued to ten union officials of the BDNA executive committee and the Committee’s recommendation that the Government give appropriate directions to the management of Shahid Sorwardi Hospital so that these warnings are withdrawn. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide it with full information on the measures taken in this regard without delay.
6. 26. As regards the complainant’s latest allegations, recalling that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures [see Digest, op. cit., para. 724], the Committee urges the Government immediately to conduct an independent inquiry into the reasons for the disciplinary proceedings brought against Manimala Biswas, Akikara Akter, Kohinur Begum, Khadabox Sarker, Delwara Chowdhury, Jasmin Uddin, Provati Das, seven trade union leaders of the BDNA, and if it is found that they are related to the trade union activities of these leaders, to ensure that they are withdrawn without delay. The Committee furthermore requests the Government to inquire into the reasons for the transfer of Sabina Yaesmin and Md. Sazzad Hossanin and if it is found that they were imposed due to their trade union activities, to take appropriate measures to redress this anti-union discrimination and to keep it informed in this respect.