Solicitud directa (CEACR) - Adopción: 2008, Publicación: 98ª reunión CIT (2009)

Convenio sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso, 1957 (núm. 105) - Bangladesh (Ratificación : 1972)

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.