Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Referring to its observation under the Convention, in which it referred to the Government’s previous indications that the National Labour Law Commission had been examining the existing laws with a view to preparing recommendations to the Government regarding their amendment, and in the absence of any new information concerning measures taken to repeal or amend the various provisions of the national legislation that are in conflict with Article 1(a) of the Convention, the Committee repeats its previous comments on the following matters:

1. The Committee previously noted that under sections 16–20 of the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on people 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. It also noted that penalties of imprisonment 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. As the Committee repeatedly pointed out, any penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform prison labour are contrary to the Convention when imposed on people convicted for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system, or having contravened a widely discretionary administrative decision depriving them of the right to publish their views or suspending or dissolving certain associations (see, for example, paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour). The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken or envisaged to repeal or amend sections 16–20 of the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), so as to ensure the observance of the Convention.

2. The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information concerning the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code (Act No. XLV of 1860), under which prison sentences involving compulsory labour may be imposed:

–      section 124A (bringing the Government into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it); sections 141–143 (unlawful assemblies); section 145, read together with sections 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); section 151, read in conjunction with section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (joining or continuing any assembly of five or more people which is likely to cause a disturbance of public peace and has been ordered to disperse); section 153 (promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens); and section 153B (inducing students to take part in political activity).

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the explanations contained in paragraphs 154, 162 and 163 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, where it observed that the Convention does not prohibit punishment by penalties involving compulsory labour of persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. But sanctions involving compulsory labour fall within the scope of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of peaceful expression of views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system, whether such prohibition is imposed by law or by a discretionary administrative decision. Since opinions and views opposed to the established system are often expressed at various kinds of meetings and assemblies, if such meetings and assemblies are subject to prior authorization granted at the discretion of the authorities and violations can be punished by sanctions involving compulsory labour, such provisions also come within the scope of the Convention.

The Committee observes that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to raise questions about their conformity with the Convention. The Committee therefore again requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the application of the above penal provisions in practice, supplying sample copies of the court decisions which could define or illustrate their scope, and to indicate measures taken or envisaged to ensure the observance of the Convention.

Article 1(c). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act:

–      Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, sections 54 and 55 (failure to implement, or breach of, any settlement, award or decision);

–      Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, sections 5(2)(h) and (i), 6(3) and 13(1) (prohibiting people employed or engaged in “essential work” from leaving their work or absenting themselves from duty or slowing down or otherwise impeding their output, essential work being defined in section 2(3) as any work relating to the manufacture, production, maintenance or repair of arms, ammunition and equipment or other supplies and any other work which the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be essential work for the purposes of this Ordinance);

–      Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, section 50 (penalties applicable to postal employees who withdraw from the duties of their office without one month’s previous notice in writing).

The Committee has noted that sections 292 and 293 of the new Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, which repealed and replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, contain provisions similar to those in sections 54 and 55 of the repealed Ordinance, including sanctions of imprisonment. As regards the old sections 54 and 55 of the 1969 Ordinance, which correspond to the new sections 292 and 293 of the 2006 Labour Act, the Committee has noted the Government’s repeated statement in its reports that an award, decision or settlement must have legally binding force for implementation in order to avoid disorder and disrespect of courts. While duly noting this statement, and being fully aware of the importance of the respect of the law and the courts’ decisions, the Committee observes, however, that the above provisions, in so far as applicable to breaches by a worker of the terms of employment established by such award, decision or settlement, permit the imposition of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee considers that such breaches may be made punishable by other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines or other punishment not involving compulsory labour), which lie outside the scope of the Convention.

Having noted that the new Labour Act, 2006, does not contain any improvements as compared to the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that, as previously noted, the Control of Employment Ordinance and that the Post Office Act were not recommended for repeal by the National Law Commission, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline, contrary to Article 1(c). It requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. 1.  In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to certain provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), which prohibited strikes in public utility services and made strikes illegal in various other circumstances, e.g. where the Government has exercised its right to prohibit any strikes lasting more than 30 days or, before the expiry of 30 days, any strike whose continuance is considered prejudicial to the national interest. The Committee noted that participation in any illegal strike was punishable with imprisonment (which may involve compulsory labour, as explained above).

The Committee has noted that sections 211(3, 4) and 227(1)(c) of the new Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, which repealed and replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provide for several restrictions on the right to strike which are similar to those contained in the repealed Ordinance, such restrictions being enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour (section 196(2)(e) read in conjunction with section 291(2), and section 294(1)), contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee has noted the Government’s view expressed in the report that the reason why the above restrictions on the right to strike have been maintained in the new Labour Act, 2006, is that such restrictions are justified in the present socio-economic context of the country. The Government also states that prohibition of strikes occurs when the national interest is in question. While noting these views and comments, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope, referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87, likewise ratified by Bangladesh, that the necessary measures will at last be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention both in law and in practice, either by removing the above restrictions on the right to strike, or by removing the penalties through which these restrictions are enforced and which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the progress made in this regard.

2. The Committee has noted the Government’s indication in its report that the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance (No. XII of 1957), which prohibited certain strikes, was incorporated in the new Labour Act, 2006. Since this Ordinance is not listed in section 353(1) of the new Act (“Repeal and Savings”), the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the Ordinance has been formally repealed, by indicating the repealing provision.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963), under which 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. Referring to the above comments on the new Labour Act, 2006, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963) into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for expressing political views, for breaches of labour discipline and for participating in strikes. For many years, the Committee has been referring to various provisions of the national legislation, under which penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for expressing political views, for breaches of labour discipline and for participating in strikes in a wide range of circumstances. It referred in this connection to certain provisions of the Penal Code, the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969), the Control of Employment Ordinance (No. XXXII of 1965), the Post Office Act (No. VI of 1898), the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963) and the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (No. XXVI of 1983).

The Committee has noted the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, which repealed and replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. However, the Committee notes with regret that the new Act does not contain any improvements as compared to the previous legislation in regard to the matters falling within the scope of the Convention. Thus, the Labour Act, 2006, still provides for certain restrictions on the right to strike, enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, which is incompatible with the Convention. Regarding the Committee’s earlier comments on the Penal Code and the Special Powers Act, 1974, the Committee previously noted the Government’s repeated indications that the National Labour Law Commission had been examining the existing laws with a view to preparing recommendations to the Government regarding their amendment. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will at last be taken in order to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will soon be in a position to report the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 198 and 199 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (No. XXVI of 1983), which provide for the forcible conveyance of seafarers on board ship to perform their duties, and sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the same Ordinance, which provide for penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour) for various disciplinary offences.

The Committee recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline and points out that only sanctions relating to acts tending to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons are not covered by the Convention. The Committee reiterates the firm hope, referring to the explanations provided in paragraphs 179–180 of its 2007 General Survey on the eradication of forced labour, that sanctions of imprisonment (involving compulsory labour) in the Merchant Shipping Ordinance will be either repealed or restricted to offences that endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons, in order to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point. The Committee asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken or envisaged to that effect.

The Committee is also addressing a more detailed request on the above points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Referring to its observations under the Convention, in which it noted the Government’s indication that the report of the National Labour Law Commission is still under examination, and in the absence of any other information concerning measures taken to repeal or amend the various provisions of the national legislation that are in conflict with the Convention, the Committee repeats its previous direct request on the following points.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. The Committee previously noted that under sections 16-20 of the Special Powers Act, No. XIV of 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 the 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 again refers to explanations given in paragraphs 102-109 and 138-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour where it pointed out that any penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform prison labour are contrary to the Convention when imposed on persons convicted for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system, or having contravened a widely discretionary administrative decision depriving them of the right to publish their views or suspending or dissolving certain associations. The Committee noted the Government’s indications concerning the establishment of a law commission which was examining the existing laws and would submit recommendations. It reiterates its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal or amend sections 16-20 of the Special Powers Act of 5 February 1974 so as to ensure the observance of the Convention.

2. In its earlier comments, 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) under which prison sentences involving compulsory labour may be imposed: section 124A (brings the Government into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it); sections 141-143 (unlawful assemblies); section 145, read together with sections 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); section 151, read together with section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (joining or continuing any assembly of five or more persons which being likely to cause a disturbance of public peace has been ordered to disperse); section 153 (promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens); and section 153B (inducing students to take part in political activity).

The Committee noted the Government’s statement in its previous report that there were no compiled data on the issue and that it was not in a position to supply full information on the matter. The Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the above provisions, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c.) 3. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions under which prison sentences may be imposed, which may, under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, involve compulsory labour:

-  Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, sections 54 and 55 (failure to implement or breach of, any settlement, award, decision);

-  Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, sections 5(2)(h) and (i), 6(3) and 13(1) (prohibiting persons employed or engaged in "essential work" from leaving their work or absenting themselves from duty or slowing down or otherwise impeding their output, essential work being defined in section 2(3) as any work relating to the manufacture, production, maintenance or repair of arms, ammunition and equipment or other supplies and any other work which the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be essential work for the purposes of this Ordinance);

-  Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, section 50 (postal employees who withdraw from the duties of their office without one month’s previous notice in writing).

As regards sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, while noting the Government’s view that award, decision or settlement must have legally binding force for implementation in order to avoid disorder and disrespect of the courts, the Committee observes that the above provisions, in so far as applicable to breaches by a worker of the terms of employment established by such award, decision or settlement, permit the imposition of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline within the meaning of Article 1(c) of the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that the Control of Employment Ordinance, although stated to have been enacted in circumstances arising out of the 1965 war, was not recommended for repeal by the National Law Commission, and that the Post Office Act was not even mentioned in the report of the National Law Commission, 1992. Recalling that the above provisions permit the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline, contrary to Article 1(c) of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will be in a position to indicate, in its next report, that the necessary steps have been taken to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

4. The Committee previously noted that no reference had been made in the report by the National Law Commission, 1992, to the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and the Essential Services (Second Ordinance), 1958, under which termination of employment without the consent of the employer is a punishable offence. The Committee has taken note of the Government’s intention to examine both texts in the future and reiterates its hope that these provisions, which are contrary to Article 1(c) of the Convention and which have also been the subject of comments under Convention No. 29 for a considerable number of years, will at last be repealed.

Article 1(d). 5. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment Act, 1980), prohibits strikes in public utility services and makes strikes illegal in various other circumstances, such as strikes by unorganized workers (sections 43 and 46(1)(b)), or where the Government has exercised its right to prohibit any strikes lasting more than 30 days or, before the expiry of 30 days, any strike whose continuance is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)). Strikes are also illegal if they have not been consented upon by three-quarters of the members of the trade union or federation recognized as a 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, according to section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may involve an obligation to work).

The Committee previously noted that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance had not been referred to in the report by the National Labour Law Commission, 1992. The Government has reiterated its view that the term "imprisonment" used in section 57 of the Ordinance means "simple imprisonment" and does not involve compulsory labour. The Committee previously observed in this connection, that under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, offences for which the relevant provisions merely prescribe a punishment of imprisonment, may be punished by the courts with either simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment (involving an obligation to work). Having noted also the Government’s repeated indication in its reports that no case of awarding rigorous imprisonment involving compulsory labour has come to its notice, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention both in law and in practice, either by removing the abovementioned restrictions on the right to strike, or by removing the penalties through which these restrictions are enforced and which may involve an obligation to perform labour. The Committee looks forward to learning of concrete action taken to this end. As regards the question raised by the Government concerning the application of section 28 of the 1969 Ordinance, the Committee refers to its comments on this subject addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87.

6. The Committee previously noted from the report of the National Labour Law Commission, 1992, that under the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1957 (XII of 1957), strikes may be prohibited for a period not exceeding six months, inter alia, in "post, ... railway services, ports and passenger transport services in the capital, loading and unloading of goods in ports, etc.". The Commission recommended that these provisions be integrated into those of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1963. The Committee points out once again that the above provisions, if enforceable with penalties involving an obligation to work, are incompatible with Article 1(d) of the Convention.

7. In its earlier 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. In this respect, the National Labour Law Commission, 1992, noted in its report that it was not desirable to prohibit any such strike which falls in the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by this law. Referring also to its comments on the Industrial Relations Ordinance in point 5 above, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

8. Regarding the Government’s view that there is no provision in labour laws imposing forced labour as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes, and that only prisoners undergoing rigorous imprisonment for a criminal offence are required to perform compulsory labour, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraph 105 of the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of the Convention; but on the other hand, if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, in connection with the work on a draft labour code, the necessary measures will at last be taken to eliminate or amend the abovementioned provisions of the legislation in force that are incompatible with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the measures taken to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In comments it has been making for a number of years, the Committee referred to various provisions of the Penal Code, the Special Powers Act, No. XIV of 1974, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XIII of 1969, as amended, the Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, the Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, No. II of 1963, and the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. XXVI of 1983. Under these provisions, compulsory labour may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system. It may also be imposed as a punishment for various breaches of labour discipline, and as a punishment for the participation in strikes in a wide range of circumstances. Furthermore, under the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties.

2. The Committee previously noted from the Government’s 1999 report, that a report of the National Labour Law Commission, which was established in 1992 with a view to examining the existing laws and to submitting recommendations regarding their amendments, was still under consideration by the Government. The Government expressed the hope that a comprehensive labour code, to be made after due consideration of the National Labour Law Commission’s report and recommendations, would be in conformity with the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention. In its 2001 report, the Government indicated, however, that the Commission’s report containing a draft labour code raised objections and complaints on the part of employers and workers, as well as other legal bodies and organizations, and had to be re-examined by legal experts, which had submitted their views for consideration by the Government. Regarding the Committee’s comments on the Penal Code and the Special Powers Act, the Government repeatedly indicated that the Law Commission had been examining the existing laws and would submit recommendations to the Government regarding their amendment.

3. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the report of the National Labour Law Commission is still under examination by a ten-member committee and would come out soon by enactment of law. The Committee trusts that the measures taken will lead to concrete results and that the national legislation will at last be brought into conformity with the Convention.

4. As regards the Committee’s earlier comments concerning sections 198 and 199 of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. XXVI of 1983, which provide for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the same Ordinance, which provide for penalties of imprisonment (involving an obligation to work) for various disciplinary offences, the Committee previously noted the Government’s statement in its 2001 report that it was not in favour of amending the above sections of the Ordinance due to socio-economic conditions of the country and because it considered that the decrease in punishment would increase the desertion of seafarers and reduce the employment opportunities for Bangladeshi seafarers on foreign ships.

5. The Committee recalled in this connection that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. Referring also to paragraphs 117-119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee pointed out that the Convention does not cover sanctions relating to acts tending to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons; however, as regards sanctions relating more generally to breaches of labour discipline such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience, sometimes supplemented by provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned to their ship, such sanctions (involving compulsory labour) must be either repealed or restricted to offences that endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons. The Committee therefore requested the Government to review the Ordinance in the light of the Convention and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring its provisions into conformity with the Convention.

6. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary action has been taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and that the Government will also supply full information on the various points set out in a request addressed directly to it.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee refers to its observation under the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

1. The Committee previously noted that under sections 16 to 20 of the Special Powers Act No. XIV of 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 the 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 again refers to explanations given in paragraphs 102-109 and 138-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour where it pointed out that any penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform prison labour are contrary to the Convention when imposed on persons convicted for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system, or having contravened a widely discretionary administrative decision depriving them of the right to publish their views or suspending or dissolving certain associations. The Committee noted the Government’s indications concerning the establishment of the National Labour Law Commission which was examining the existing laws and would submit recommendations. It reiterates its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal or amend sections 16 to 20 of the Special Powers Act of 5 February 1974 so as to ensure the observance of the Convention.

2. In its earlier comments, 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) under which prison sentences involving compulsory labour may be imposed:

-  section 124A (bringing the Government into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it);

-  sections 141 to 143 (unlawful assemblies);

-  section 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);

-  section 151, read together with section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (joining or continuing any assembly of five or more persons which being likely to cause a disturbance of public peace has been ordered to disperse);

-  section 153 (promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens); and

-  section 153B (inducing students to take part in political activity).

The Committee noted the Government’s statement in its previous report that there were no compiled data on the issue and that it was not in the position to supply full information on the matter. The Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the above provisions, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope, so as to enable the Committee to assess their conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(c)

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions under which prison sentences may be imposed, which may, under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, involve compulsory labour:

-  Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, sections 54 and 55 (failure to implement or breach of, any settlement, award, decision);

-  Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, sections 5(2)(h) and (i), 6(3) and 13(1) (prohibiting persons employed or engaged in "essential work" from leaving their work or absenting themselves from duty or slowing down or otherwise impeding their output. "Essential work" is defined in section 2(3) as any work relating to the manufacture, production, maintenance or repair of arms, ammunition and equipment or other supplies and any other work which the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be essential work for the purposes of this Ordinance);

-  Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, section 50 (postal employees who withdraw from the duties of their office without one month’s previous notice in writing).

As regards sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Committee notes the Government’s view expressed in its latest report that an award, decision or settlement must have legally binding force for implementation in order to avoid disorder and disrespect of courts. However, the Committee observes that the above provisions, in so far as they are applicable to breaches by a worker of the terms of employment established by such award, decision or settlement, permit the imposition of compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline, thus offending Article 1(c) of the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to bring the provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee previously noted that the Control of Employment Ordinance, although stated to have been enacted in circumstances arising out of the 1965 war, was not recommended for repeal by the National Law Commission, and that the Post Office Act was not even mentioned in the report of the National Law Commission, 1992. Recalling that the above provisions permit the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline, contrary to Article 1(c) of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will be in a position to indicate, in its next report, that the necessary steps have been taken to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

4. The Committee previously noted that no reference had been made in the report by the National Law Commission, 1992, to the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and the Essential Services (Second Ordinance), 1958, under which termination of employment without the consent of the employer is a punishable offence. The Committee has taken note of the Government’s intention expressed in its latest report to examine both texts in the future and reiterates its hope that these provisions, which are contrary to Article 1(c) of the Convention and which have also been the subject of comments under Convention No. 29 for a considerable number of years, will at last be repealed.

Article 1(d)

5. In its earlier comments, the Committee noted that the combined effect of section 57 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1980, and section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, means that participation in any illegal strike may be punished with imprisonment, which may involve an obligation to work. The Ordinance prohibits strikes in a number of conditions as set out hereunder:

-  strikes are prohibited in public utility services;

-  strikes by unorganized workers are illegal (sections 43 and 46(1)(b));

-  strikes are illegal where the Government has exercised its right to prohibit any strike lasting more than 30 days or any strike whose continuance is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2));

-  strikes are also illegal if they have not been consented upon by three-quarters of the members of the trade union or federation recognized 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).

The Committee previously noted that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance had not been referred to in the report by the National Labour Law Commission, 1992. In its latest report, the Government reiterates its view that the term "imprisonment" used in section 57 of the Ordinance means "simple imprisonment" and does not involve compulsory labour. The Committee previously observed in this connection that under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, offences for which the relevant provisions merely prescribe a punishment of imprisonment may be punished by the courts with either simple imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment (involving an obligation to work). Having noted also the Government’s repeated indication in its reports that no case of awarding rigorous imprisonment involving compulsory labour has come to its notice, the Committee reiterates its hope that the necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention both in law and in practice, either by removing the abovementioned restrictions on the right to strike, or by removing the penalties through which these restrictions are enforced and which may involve an obligation to perform labour. The Committee looks forward to learning of concrete action taken to this end. As regards the question raised by the Government concerning the application of section 28 of the 1969 Ordinance, the Committee refers to its comments on this subject addressed to the Government under Convention No. 87.

6. The Committee previously noted from the report of the National Labour Law Commission, 1992, that under the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1957 (XII of 1957), strikes may be prohibited for a period not exceeding six months, inter alia, in "post, ... railway services, ports and passenger transport services in the capital, loading and unloading of goods in ports, etc.". The Commission recommended that these provisions be integrated into those of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1963. The Committee points out once again that the above provisions, if enforceable with penalties involving an obligation to work, are incompatible with Article 1(d) of the Convention.

7. In its earlier 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. In this respect, the National Labour Law Commission, 1992, noted in its report that it was not desirable to prohibit any such strike which falls in the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by this law. Referring also to its comments on the Industrial Relations Ordinance in point 5 above, the Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

8. Regarding the Government’s view expressed in the report that there is no provision in labour laws imposing forced labour as a means of labour discipline or as a punishment for having participated in strikes, and that only prisoners undergoing rigorous imprisonment for a criminal offence are required to perform compulsory labour, the Committee recalls, referring to paragraph 105 of the 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, that, in most cases, labour imposed on persons as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law will have no relevance to the application of the Convention; but on the other hand, if a person is in any way forced to work because he holds or has expressed particular political views, has committed a breach of labour discipline or has participated in a strike, the situation is covered by the Convention.

The Committee reiterates its hope that, in connection with the work on a draft labour code, the necessary measures will at last be taken to eliminate or amend the abovementioned provisions of the legislation in force that are incompatible with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the measures taken to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee has noted the information provided by the Government in reply to its earlier comments.

Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. For a number of years, the Committee has been referring to various provisions of the Penal Code, the Special Powers Act, No. XIV of 1974, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XIII of 1969, as amended, the Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, the Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, No. II of 1963 and the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. XXVI of 1983. Under a number of these provisions, compulsory labour may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system; it may also be imposed as a punishment for various breaches of labour discipline, and as a punishment for the participation in strikes in a wide range of circumstances; furthermore, under the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties.

2. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication in its 1999 report that a report of the National Labour Law Commission, which was established in 1992 with a view to examining the existing laws and to submit recommendations regarding their amendments, was still under consideration by the Government. The Government expressed the hope that a comprehensive Labour Code, to be made after due consideration of the National Labour Law Commission’s report and recommendations, would be in conformity with the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Commission’s report containing a draft Labour Code raised objections and complaints on the part of employers and workers, as well as other legal bodies and organizations, and has been re-examined by the committee of legal experts, which has submitted its views for consideration by the Government, so that it could be passed by Parliament. With regard to the Committee’s comments on the Penal Code and the Special Powers Act, the Government confirmed its previous indications that the Law Commission had been examining the existing laws and would submit recommendations to the Government regarding their amendment. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that concrete action will at last be taken to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention.

3. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 198 and 199 of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. XXVI of 1983, which provide for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and to sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the same Ordinance, which provide for penalties of imprisonment (which may involve an obligation to work) for various disciplinary offences, in a situation where life, safety or health are not endangered. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indications that the provisions of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance would be examined by a tripartite committee in order to be brought into conformity with the Convention. However, in its latest report the Government states that it is not in favour of amending the above sections of the Ordinance due to socio-economic conditions of the country and because it considers that the decrease in punishment will increase the desertion of seafarers and reduce the employment opportunities for Bangladeshi seafarers on foreign ships.

4. While noting these explanations, the Committee recalls that Article 1(c) of the Convention prohibits the exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a means of labour discipline. Referring also to paragraphs 117 to 119 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour, the Committee emphasizes that the Convention does not cover sanctions relating to acts tending to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons. However, as regards sanctions relating more generally to breaches of labour discipline such as desertion, absence without leave or disobedience, sometimes supplemented by provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned to their ship, such sanctions (involving compulsory labour) must be either repealed or restricted to offences that endanger the safety of the ship or the life or health of persons. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to review the Ordinance in the light of the Convention and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring its provisions into conformity with those of the Convention.

5. The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate the necessary action that has been taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to supply full information on the various points set out in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee refers to its observation under the Convention.

Article 1(a) of the Convention

1. In its earlier requests, the Committee observed that under sections 16-20 of the Special Powers Act No. XIV of 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 the 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 refers once more to explanations given in paragraphs 102-109 and 138-140 of its 1979 General Survey on the abolition of forced labour where the Committee observed that any penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform prison labour are contrary to the Convention when imposed on persons convicted for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system, or having contravened a widely discretionary administrative decision depriving them of the right to publish their views or suspending or dissolving certain associations. The Committee notes that the Government in its report refers to the formation of a Law Commission which is examining the existing laws and will submit recommendations.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to repeal or amend sections 16-20 of the Special Powers Act of 5 February 1974 so as to ensure the observance of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to supply information on the work of the Law Commission on that point.

2. 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) under which prison sentences involving compulsory labour may be imposed: sections 124A (brings the Government into hatred or contempt or exciting disaffection towards it); 141-143 (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 any assembly of five or more persons which being likely to cause a disturbance of 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).

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that there are no compiled data on the issue and that it is not in the position to supply full information on the matter now. The Committee again requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the above provisions, including copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope so as to enable the Committee to ascertain their being applied in a manner compatible with the Convention.

Article 1(c)

3. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the following provisions under which prison sentences may be imposed, which may, under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, involve compulsory labour:

-- Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XXIII of 1969, sections 54 and 55 (failure to implement or breach of, any settlement, award, decision);

-- Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, sections 5(2)(h) and (i), 6(3) and 13(1) (prohibiting persons employed or engaged in "essential work" from leaving their work or absenting themselves from duty or slowing down or otherwise impeding their output, essential work being defined in section 2(3) as any work relating to the manufacture, production, maintenance or repair of arms, ammunition and equipment or other supplies and any other work which the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be essential work for the purposes of this Ordinance);

-- Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, section 50 (postal employees who withdraw from the duties of their office without one month's previous notice in writing).

While noting the indication in the Government's latest report that the report of the National Law Commission, 1992 was under consideration, the Committee notes from the report of that commission that sections 54 and 55 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance were not touched upon in the report, that the Control of Employment Ordinance, although stated to have been enacted in circumstances arising out of the 1965 war, is not recommended for repeal and is considered to have "no connection with labour laws," and that likewise, the Post Office Act is not mentioned in the report. Recalling that the provisions mentioned above provide for the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline, contrary to Article 1(c) of the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report that the necessary steps have been taken to bring the abovementioned provisions into conformity with the Convention.

4. The Committee notes the recommendation of the National Law Commission, 1992 in its report that the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 (LIII of 1952), the Essential Services (Second Ordinance) 1958 (XLI of 1958) and the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1963 (II of 1963) should be integrated into one independent law. While no reference was made by the Commission in its report to the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 and Essential Services (Second Ordinance) 1958 under which termination of employment without the consent of the employer is a punishable offence, the Committee hopes that these provisions, which are contrary to Article 1(c) of the Convention and which have been the subject of comments under Convention No. 29 for a considerable number of years, will at last be repealed. With regard to the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, the Committee refers to point 8 below.

Article 1(c) and (d)

5. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. XXVI of 1983, provides under sections 198 and 199 for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and in sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) for the punishment, with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work, of various disciplinary offences, in cases where life, safety or health are not endangered. The Committee requested the Government to review the Ordinance and to indicate the measures taken to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes that the National Law Commission, 1992 in its report recommends that the Ordinance, which it considers not to have a direct connection with other labour laws, "shall continue to be in force". In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Ordinance is in the process of review and that the abovementioned provisions will be examined by a tripartite committee.

The Committee hopes that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary action has been taken to bring the Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(d)

6. 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), prohibits strikes in public utility services and makes strikes illegal in various other circumstances, such as strikes by unorganized workers (sections 43 and 46(1)(b)), or where the Government has exercised its right to prohibit any strikes lasting more than 30 days or, before the expiry of 30 days, any strike whose continuance is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)). Strikes are also illegal if they have not been consented upon by three-quarters of the members of the trade union or federation recognized 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, according to section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, may involve an obligation to work).

The Committee notes that the National Labour Law Commission, 1992 in its report has made a number of recommendations concerning the Industrial Relations Ordinance, including the recommendation that illegal strikes shall be considered as unfair labour practices, but that the abovementioned provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance were not referred to by the National Labour Law Commission, 1992, in its report. Noting also the Government's indication in its report that no case of awarding rigorous imprisonment involving compulsory labour has come to its notice, and that workers' organizations are functioning freely and none of them has ever complained that any labour law has in any way been the cause of forced or compulsory labour, the Committee hopes that necessary measures will be taken to ensure the observance of the Convention both in law and in practice, either by removing the abovementioned restrictions on the right to strike, or by removing the penalties through which these restrictions are enforced and which may involve an obligation to perform labour. The Committee looks forward to learning of concrete action taken to this end.

7. The Committee notes from the report of the National Labour Law Commission, 1992 that under the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance, 1957 (XII of 1957), strikes may be prohibited for a period not exceeding six months, inter alia, in "post, ... railway services, ports and passenger transport services in the capital, loading and unloading of goods in ports, etc." The Commission recommends that these provisions be integrated into those of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1963. The Committee observes that the above provisions, if enforceable with penalties involving an obligation to work, are incompatible with Article 1(d) of the Convention. With regard to the provisions of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1963, the Committee refers to point 8 below.

8. 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.

In this respect, the National Labour Law Commission, 1992 noted in its report that it was not desirable to prohibit any such strike which falls in the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by this law. Referring also to its comments on the Industrial Relations Ordinance in point 6 above, the Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

9. The Committee notes that by notification of 24 April 1998, the Ministry of Labour has reconstituted the "Labour Law Review Committee" which is to carefully review the "Draft Labour Code 1994" and submit a report on the same together with is recommendation. The Committee hopes that in connection with the work on a draft labour code the necessary measures will be taken to eliminate or amend the abovementioned provisions of the legislation in force that are incompatible with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the measures taken to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's reports.

Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention. In comments made for a number of years, the Committee referred to various provisions of the Penal Code, the Special Powers Act, No. XIV of 1974, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, No. XIII of 1969, as amended, the Control of Employment Ordinance, No. XXXII of 1965, the Post Office Act, No. VI of 1898, the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, No. II of 1963 and the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No. XXVI of 1983. Under a number of these provisions, compulsory labour may be imposed as a means of political coercion or as a punishment for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system; as a punishment for various breaches of labour discipline, and as a punishment for the participation in strikes in a wide range of circumstances; furthermore, under the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, seafarers may be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties.

The Committee had noted the Government's indication in an earlier report that a National Labour Law Commission, 1992 had been established. In its latest report, the Government states that the report of the National Labour Law Commission is still under consideration by the Government. The Government hopes that a comprehensive Labour Code, to be made after due consideration of the National Labour Law Commission's report and recommendations, will be in conformity with the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention "as far as practicable". The Government further states that the provisions of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance will be examined by a tripartite committee in order to be brought into conformity with the Convention. With regard to the Committee's comments on the Penal Code and the Special Powers Act, the Government likewise indicates that it has formed a law commission which is now examining the existing laws and will submit recommendations to the Government regarding the amendment of laws, "if necessary".

In the absence of other information concerning any measures adopted to repeal or amend the various provisions of the national legislation that are in conflict with the Convention, the Committee hopes that concrete action will at last be taken to bring the national legislation fully into conformity with the Convention, and that the Government will supply full information on the various points which are once more set out in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier 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 noted the Government's indication in its previous report that the efficacy of the Special Powers Act, 1974, was questioned in political circles and that there was pressing demand in Parliament for its abolition. The Committee notes the Government's report which refers to the aforementioned indication in the previous report. 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.

2. 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) under 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 previous reports the Government indicated that information on the practical application of these provisions was not compiled by any agency and, therefore, it was not possible to supply full information.

In the absence of any information in this regard in the Government's latest report, the Committee wishes to repeat its previous request for supply of information. It would appreciate receiving, at least, copies of court decisions and of any by-laws and instructions adopted under the above provisions.

Article 1(c). 3. 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.

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. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that it is committed to uphold basic human rights and dignity as enshrined in the Constitution and that the legitimate interest and rights of workers are fully protected by the labour laws.

The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report that necessary steps have been taken to bring legislation on labour discipline into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. 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 unorganized 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 recognized 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 notes the Government's indication in its report that the requirement of the consent of three-quarters of the members of the trade union for entering into strike has been made in the larger interest of workers as desired by them and that the workers feel that unless the opinion of the majority of the workers is obtained regarding the decision of strike, general workers may not participate in it which will ultimately create unfavourable situations to realize workers' demands. Referring to its earlier comments under Convention No. 87 (Report of the CEACR, 1995, page 153) and to its General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 170, the Committee wishes to point out that, for the purposes of Convention No. 105, where participation in an illegal strike may be punished with imprisonment involving compulsory labour, the majority required at the vote, and other conditions for entering legally into strike should not be such that the exercise of the right to strike becomes very difficult, or even impossible, in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure the observance of the Convention.

5. 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 notes the Government's indication in its report that a National Labour Laws Commission was established in 1992 and that it submitted a report to the Government with a view to updating the various laws adopted at different times and to maintaining harmonious industrial relations. Enactment of a Labour Code on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission is also expected.

The Committee expresses the hope that the forthcoming enactment of the Labour Code will contain provisions which bring sections 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned Ordinance into conformity with the Convention and, more generally, that it will be drafted in such a way as to take into account the other points raised in the Committee's comments on the Convention.

6. The Committee also requests the Government to forward a copy of the report of the National Labour Laws Commission mentioned in the Government's report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

1. Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that under sections 101 and 102 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, seamen could be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and under sections 100 and 103(ii), (iii) and (v) various disciplinary offences by seamen, concerning cases where life, health or safety are not endangered, were punishable with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work. The Committee noted that the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983, which has repealed the 1923 Act, again provided in sections 198 and 199 for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and in sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) for the punishment, with imprisonment that may involve an obligation to work, of various disciplinary offences in cases where life, safety or health are not endangered. The Committee requested the Government to review the Ordinance adopted in 1983 and to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring it into conformity with the Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Ordinance is under process for further amendment and a copy would be sent as and when it is amended. The Committee hopes that the amendment takes the above-mentioned points into consideration and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary action has been taken to bring the Ordinance into conformity with the Convention. 2. A certain number of other legislative texts which call for comment under Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention are again dealt with in a request addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(a) of the Convention. 1. In its earlier 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 noted the Government's indication in its previous report that the efficacy of the Special Powers Act, 1974, was questioned in political circles and that there was pressing demand in Parliament for its abolition. The Committee notes the Government's report which refers to the aforementioned indication in the previous report. 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.

2. 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) under 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 previous reports the Government indicated that information on the practical application of these provisions was not compiled by any agency and, therefore, it was not possible to supply full information.

In the absence of any information in this regard in the Government's latest report, the Committee wishes to repeat its previous request for supply of information. It would appreciate receiving, at least, copies of court decisions and of any by-laws and instructions adopted under the above provisions.

Article 1(c). 3. 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.

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. The Committee notes the Government's indication in its report that it is committed to uphold basic human rights and dignity as enshrined in the Constitution and that the legitimate interest and rights of workers are fully protected by the labour laws.

The Committee hopes that the Government will be in a position to indicate in its next report that necessary steps have been taken to bring legislation on labour discipline into conformity with the Convention.

Article 1(d). 4. 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 unorganized 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 recognized 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 notes the Government's indication in its report that the requirement of the consent of three-quarters of the members of the trade union for entering into strike has been made in the larger interest of workers as desired by them and that the workers feel that unless the opinion of the majority of the workers is obtained regarding the decision of strike, general workers may not participate in it which will ultimately create unfavourable situations to realize workers' demands. Referring to its earlier comments under Convention No. 87 (Report of the CEACR, 1995, page 153) and to its General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 170, the Committee wishes to point out that, for the purposes of Convention No. 105, where participation in an illegal strike may be punished with imprisonment involving compulsory labour, the majority required at the vote, and other conditions for entering legally into strike should not be such that the exercise of the right to strike becomes very difficult, or even impossible, in practice.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure the observance of the Convention.

5. 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 notes the Government's indication in its report that a National Labour Laws Commission was established in 1992 and that it submitted a report to the Government with a view to updating the various laws adopted at different times and to maintaining harmonious industrial relations. Enactment of a Labour Code on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission is also expected.

The Committee expresses the hope that the forthcoming enactment of the Labour Code will contain provisions which bring sections 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned Ordinance into conformity with the Convention and, more generally, that it will be drafted in such a way as to take into account the other points raised in the Committee's comments on the Convention.

6. The Committee also requests the Government to forward a copy of the report of the National Labour Laws Commission mentioned in the Government's report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that under sections 101 and 102 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, seamen could be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and under sections 100 and 103(ii), (iii) and (v) various disciplinary offences by seamen, concerning cases where life, health or safety are not endangered, were punishable with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work. The Committee noted that the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983, which has repealed the 1923 Act, again provided in sections 198 and 199 for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and in sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) for the punishment, with imprisonment that may involve an obligation to work, of various disciplinary offences in cases where life, safety or health are not endangered.

The Committee requested the Government to review the Ordinance adopted in 1983 and to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring it into conformity with the Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the Ordinance is under process for further amendment and a copy would be sent as and when it is amended.

The Committee hopes that the amendment takes the above-mentioned points into consideration and that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary action has been taken to bring the Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

2. A certain number of other legislative texts which call for comment under Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention are again dealt with in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee also takes note of the observations made by the Bangladesh Employers' Association.

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that under sections 101 and 102 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, seamen could be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and under sections 100 and 103(ii), (iii) and (v) various disciplinary offences by seamen, concerning cases where life, health or safety are not endangered, were punishable with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work. The Committee noted that the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983, which has repealed the 1923 Act, again provided in sections 198 and 199 for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and in sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) for the punishment, with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work, of various disciplinary offences in cases where life, safety or health are not endangered.

The Committee requested the Government to review the Ordinance adopted in 1983 and to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Government has previously indicated that it is examining the Committee's suggestion. In its latest report, the Government merely states that it has taken note of the Committee's comments.

The Committee notes that in its observations the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA) recalls that in its last reply it suggested that the Ministry of Labour and Manpower may like to consult the Ministry of Shipping to bring the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983, into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee expresses once again the firm hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary action has been taken to bring the Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

2. A certain number of other legislative texts which call for comment under Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention are again dealt with in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. In its previous direct request the Committee noted the Government's indication that, with the revival of the Constitution, provisions relating to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and of speech had been restored. The Committee had previously noted that the Constitution (Partial Revival) (Second) Order, 1985 revived articles 28, 29, 30, 34, 40, 41 and 102 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh subject to certain conditions. The Committee requested the Government to supply copies of legislative texts which had revived the Constitution as a whole or extended the application of the above-mentioned Order to other articles of the Constitution such as articles 37 to 39 relating to various fundamental freedoms.

The Committee notes the Government's statement in its latest report that the Proclamation of 24 March 1982, whereby the Constitution was suspended, was repealed by the Order of 10 November 1986 and that all provisions relating to fundamental rights and freedoms have been restored. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Order which the Government stated it had sent with its report.

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 such rigorous imprisonment cannot be construed as forced labour. The Committee would however refer once more to explanations provided in paragraphs 102 to 109 and 138 to 140 of its 1979 General Survey on the Abolition of Forced Labour where the Committee observed that any penal sanctions involving an obligation to perform prison labour are contrary to the Convention when imposed on persons convicted for expressing political views or views opposed to the established political system, or having contravened a widely discretionary administrative decision depriving them of the right to publish their views or suspending or dissolving certain associations. Noting the Government's indications that no person has been tried under the Act in any court, the Committee expresses once more the hope that the Government will give consideration to repealing or amending sections 16 to 20 of the Special Powers Act of 5 February 1974 so as to ensure observance of the Convention.

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 - under 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 refers to its previous statement 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.

As the provisions referred to may have a bearing on the Convention, the Committee trusts the Government to supply any information related to these provisions, in particular copies of any court decisions made thereunder as well as any by-laws and instructions given in relation to them.

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. The Committee notes the statement by the Government in its latest report that it is not found necessary to amend legislation any further. Referring to the previous indications by the Government that in practice courts do not resort to section 3(26), the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will find no difficulty in bringing legislation on this point into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

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 Government indicated that the punishment under the provisions referred to does not lead to rigorous imprisonment and, therefore, the Government did not contemplate to review them. The Committee notes that the Government in its latest report reiterates its previous position. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will 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.

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 noted the Government's indication that it examines the Committee's comments. The Committee accordingly hopes again that the necessary measures will be taken to bring sections 2 and 3 into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention. 1. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that under sections 101 and 102 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923, seamen could be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, and under sections 100 and 103(ii), (iii) and (v) various disciplinary offences by seamen, concerning cases where life, health or safety are not endangered, were punishable with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work. The Committee noted that the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983, which has repealed the 1923 Act, again provides in sections 198 and 199 for the forcible conveyance of seamen on board ship to perform their duties, and in sections 196, 197 and 200(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) for the punishment, with imprisonment which may involve an obligation to work, of various disciplinary offences in cases where life, safety or health are not endangered. The Committee requested the Government to review the Ordinance adopted in 1983 and to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's renewed statement in its report that the Government is examining the suggestion of the Committee. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will soon be in a position to indicate that the necessary action has been taken to bring the Ordinance into conformity with the Convention.

2. A certain number of other legislative texts which call for comment under Article 1(a), (c) and (d) of the Convention are again dealt with in a direct request to the Government.