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

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted that section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act of 2006 (ICT Act) criminalizes several forms of online expression, including defamation, expressions tarnishing the image of the State or an individual and statements hurting religious sentiments with sanctions of imprisonment.

The Committee notes that section 57 of the ICT Act has been repealed by the Digital Security Act of 2018 which replicates the above provisions under sections 25, 28 and 29. While noting that the violation of these provisions continues to be punishable with sanctions of imprisonment, the Committee observes that the Act refers to simple imprisonment which, pursuant to section 53 of the Penal Code, does not involve an obligation to work, contrary to rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life, which involve compulsory hard labour.

Article 1(c). Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. The Committee previously 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. It noted the Government’s information that it has initiated a project to review the Merchant Shipping Ordinance in order to bring it into line with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, also ratified by Bangladesh.

The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that the revision of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance is in its final stage. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in the context of the review of the merchant shipping legislation, to amend or repeal sections 198 and 199 so as to ensure that seafarers will not be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, except in situations of danger for the ship or the life or health of persons. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard, and a copy of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, once revised.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee previously 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 in the interest of public order. The Committee observed that violations of such provisions are punishable with rigorous imprisonment, which involves compulsory hard labour.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication that the 1963 Ordinance was adopted with a view to improving the administrative system and does not interfere in the employer-worker relations. The Government also states that the implementation of this Convention is in no way hampered by the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963). The Committee once again recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated in a strike. Referring to paragraph 314 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee emphasizes that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving compulsory labour can only be compatible with the Convention in so far as it is necessary to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity.  The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963) into conformity with the Convention. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, including any prosecutions carried out or court decisions handed down, indicating the penalties imposed and the facts that led to convictions.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving an obligation to work as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. Penal Code. The Committee previously noted section 124A of the Penal Code, which provides that whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life or any shorter term, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added, or with a fine. The Committee observed that according to section 53 of the Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life involve compulsory hard labour, while simple imprisonment does not involve an obligation to work. Observing that section 124A provides for sanctions involving compulsory labour, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views, or views opposed to the established system.

The Committee notes that the Government, in its report, reiterates its statement that the Penal Code does not interfere in the employer–worker relations and is applied to impose penalties on acts of violence or incitement to violence or engagement in acts aimed at violence which goes beyond the scope of application of the Convention. It also states that there are no cases where penalties involving compulsory labour are imposed for the peaceful expression of political views, or views opposed to the established political system.

The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by prohibiting the imposition of penalties which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee stresses that the purpose of the Convention is to ensure that no form of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour exacted from convicted persons, is imposed in the circumstances specified in the Convention, which are closely interlinked with civil liberties, and not limited to employer–worker relations. The range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour thus comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views. However, the protection provided for by the Convention does not extend to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence (paragraphs 302 and 303 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions). In this connection, the Committee observes that, by referring to “incitement to contempt or disaffection towards the Government”, section 124A of the Penal Code is worded in terms broad enough to lend itself to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as it is enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, it falls within the scope of the Convention.  The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views, or views opposed to the established system, by clearly restricting the scope of section 124A of the Penal Code to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of this section in practice, including on prosecutions conducted, court decisions handed down, penalties imposed and the facts that led to convictions.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee previously noted sections 16–20 of the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), under which penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on people who publish prejudicial reports or contravene orders for prior scrutiny and approval of certain publications. The Committee also noted the following provisions of the Penal Code, under which penalties of imprisonment may be imposed:

• -sections 141–143 (unlawful assemblies);
• -section 145, read in conjunction 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 notes the Government’s information in its report that sections 16–18 of the Special Powers Act have been repealed by section 3 of the Special Powers (Amendment) Act, 1991 (Act No. XVIII of 1991). Referring to other provisions mentioned above, the Government states that they do not interfere in employer–worker relations and that each country has its separate social, economic, cultural and religious circumstances. The Committee notes that the violation of these provisions is punishable with simple imprisonment. Pursuant to section 53 of the Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life involve compulsory hard labour, while simple imprisonment does not involve an obligation to work.

Article 1(c). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. Seafarers. The Committee previously 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.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement in its report that no seafarer is forced to work on board ship. The Government also indicates that, following the ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006), in 2014, if any discrepancies are found, the necessary measures will be taken with a view to bringing the Merchant Shipping Ordinance in line with the MLC, 2006. The Committee also notes that a project named “Development of Maritime legislation of Bangladesh” has been initiated by the Government with a view to review the Merchant Shipping Ordinance of 1983. In this regard, the Committee recalls that provisions relating to breaches of labour discipline as such, for example, desertion, absence without leave or disobedience, supplemented by provisions under which seafarers may be forcibly returned on board ship, are not compatible with the Convention, unless such acts tend to endanger the ship or the life or health of persons (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 312). The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the context of the review of the merchant shipping legislation, in order to amend or repeal the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance so as to ensure that seafarers would not be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties, unless such breaches of labour discipline endanger the ship or the life or health of persons. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee previously 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 in the interest of public order. The Committee observed that violations of such provisions are punishable with rigorous imprisonment, involving an obligation to work.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated indication in its report that the 1963 Ordinance is not related to employment relationships, and was adopted with a view to improving the administrative system. The Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. Referring to paragraph 314 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee also observes that a suspension of the right to strike enforced by sanctions involving forced labour is compatible with the Convention only in so far as it is necessary to cope with cases of force majeure in the strict sense of the term – namely, when the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population is endangered – provided that the duration of the prohibition is limited to the period of immediate necessity. The Committee therefore once again expresses its firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963) into conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. 1. Penal Code. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the application in practice of section 124A of the Penal Code, which provides that whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life or any shorter term, to which a fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which a fine may be added, or with a fine. According to section 53 of the Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment for life involve compulsory hard labour, while simple imprisonment does not involve an obligation to work.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Penal Code does not interfere in employer–worker relations, and is applied to impose penalties on violence, incitement to violence or engagement in acts aimed at violence. Referring to paragraph 263 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the Convention is to ensure that no form of forced or compulsory labour is used in the circumstances specified in the Convention, which are closely interlinked with civil liberties, not limited to employer–worker relations. The Committee recalls 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. In this connection, the Committee observes that, referring to incitement to contempt or disaffection towards the Government, section 124A of the Penal Code is worded in terms broad enough to lend itself to application as a means of punishment for the expression of views, and in so far as it is enforceable with sanctions involving compulsory labour, it falls within the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no penalties involving compulsory labour may be imposed for the peaceful expression of political views, or views opposed to the established system, for example by clearly restricting the scope of section 124A of the Penal Code to situations connected with the use of violence or incitement to violence, or by repealing sanctions involving compulsory labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect, as well as information on the application of this section in practice, including any prosecutions conducted or court decisions handed down, indicating the penalties imposed.

2. Information and Communication Technology Act. The Committee notes that, section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act of 2006 (ICT) criminalizes several forms of online expression, including defamation, expressions tarnishing the image of the state or an individual and statements hurting religious sentiments, among others. As amended in 2013, the offences under this section are punishable by imprisonment of seven–14 years. The Committee also notes that, in its concluding observations of 27 April 2017, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) expresses its concern at the arrest of at least 35 journalists, “secular bloggers” and human rights defenders in 2016 under the ICT Act of 2006 (amended in 2013), a de facto blasphemy law that limits freedom of opinion and expression using vague and overbroad terminology to criminalize publishing information online, that “hurts religious sentiment” and information that prejudices “the image of the State” with a punishment of seven to 14 years (CCPR/C/BGD/CO/1, paragraph 27). The Committee further notes that, pursuant to section 46(3) of the Prison Act of 1894, any inmate who violates prison rules may be punished by hard labour for a period not exceeding seven days, even if he/she has not been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment, which involves an obligation to work. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that no punishment involving compulsory labour is imposed in practice on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system. It also requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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. The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information concerning the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code, 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 in conjunction 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);
• -section 153B (inducing students to take part in political activity).

The Committee recalled 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.

In this connection, the Committee observes that the above provisions are worded in terms broad enough to raise questions about their conformity with the Convention. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions of the Penal Code in practice, supplying sample copies of relevant 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. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the following provisions under which various breaches of labour discipline are punishable with imprisonment, which may involve compulsory prison labour under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act:

• -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 their duties without previous notice, in writing, of one month).

The Committee notes the Government’s repeated indication that the Control of Employment Ordinance, 1965, has been promulgated during an exceptional period of war and therefore has no connection with the current Labour Act of 2006. The Government also reiterates its statement that the provisions in the Post Office Act, 1898, are not related to employment relationships, but established to improve the administrative system. While noting this information, the Committee once again points out that the above provisions allow for the imposition of compulsory prison 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 (for example, fines or other punishment not involving compulsory labour), which lie outside the scope of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the above provisions of the Control of Employment Ordinance, 1965, and of the Post Office Act, 1898, so that it can assess to what extent these provisions are compatible with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance (No. XII of 1957), which prohibits certain strikes. The Committee pointed out that such a prohibition, if enforceable with sanctions involving an obligation to work, is incompatible with the Convention. In this regard, the Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the above Ordinance has not been repealed. The Government also indicated that the provisions in the 1957 Ordinance are not related to employment relationships, and were adopted with a view to improving the administrative system.

Referring also to its observation addressed to the Government, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no information on this point. The Committee therefore reiterates its hope that the Government will provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure, in accordance with the Convention, that no penal sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed against workers for peaceful participation in strikes.

The Committee previously 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 in the interest of public order. The Committee observed that violations of such provisions are punishable with rigorous imprisonment, involving an obligation to work. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in order to bring sections 2 and 3 of the Services (Temporary Powers) Ordinance (No. II of 1963) into conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above provisions in practice, supplying copies of any court decisions defining or illustrating their scope.

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

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Sanctions involving the obligation to work as a punishment for the expression of political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. For many years, the Committee has been referring to sections 16–20 of the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), under which penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on people who publish prejudicial reports or contravene orders for prior scrutiny and approval of certain publications, or for the suspension or dissolution of certain associations. The Committee 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.

The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated statement that the provisions in the Special Powers Act are not related to employment relationships but were established to improve the administrative system. In this regard, referring also to paragraph 302 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the fact that sanctions involving compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, are incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention where they enforce a prohibition of the peaceful expression of non-violent views or of opposition to the established political, social or economic system. Therefore, the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving forced or compulsory labour under this provision comprise the freedom to express political or ideological views, as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens peacefully seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views and which may also be affected by measures of political coercion. The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend sections 16–20 of the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), so as to ensure that no prison sentences involving compulsory labour are imposed on persons who, without having recourse to violence, express political opinions or views opposed to the established political, social or economic system, and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying, in particular, copies of relevant court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. The Committee previously observed that sections 292 and 293 of the Bangladesh Labour Act of 2006, which repealed and replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are worded in terms similar to those in sections 54 and 55 of the repealed Ordinance. Sections 292 and 293 provide for sanctions of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour, for committing a breach of settlement or failing to implement a settlement. In this regard, the Committee noted that the Labour Act was in the process of being revised and requested the Government to take the necessary measures, in the context of the legislative review process, to bring the above provisions into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in light of the socio-economic situation in the country, sections 292 and 293 do not appear to contain any element of compulsory labour. The Committee notes with regret that, despite the comments it has been making on this point, the Labour (Amendment) Act, adopted in 2013, does not modify the above sections of the 2006 Labour Act. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken, without further delay, in order to ensure that no sanctions of imprisonment involving an obligation to perform prison labour can be imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline.

Disciplinary measures applicable to seafarers. In its previous 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 notes the Government’s statement that no seafarer is forced to work on board ship. The Government also indicates that, following the ratification of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, (MLC, 2006) in 2014, if any discrepancies are found, the necessary measures will be taken with a view to bringing the Merchant Shipping Ordinance in line with the MLC, 2006. Taking due note of the above information, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to take the necessary measures, in the context of a future review of the merchant shipping legislation, in order to amend or repeal the above provisions of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance so as to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons are not enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, and that seafarers would not be forcibly conveyed on board ship to perform their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for participation in strikes. The Committee previously noted that sections 211(3) and (4) and 227(1)(c) of the 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. The Committee observed that such restrictions are enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory prison 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 notes the Government’s repeated statement that such restrictions on the right to strike are justified in the present socio-economic context of the country. The Committee notes with regret that, in spite of the comments it has been making for several years on this matter, the Labour (Amendment) Act, adopted in 2013, does not repeal or modify the above sections of the 2006 Labour Act.

The Committee recalls in this regard, that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated peacefully in a strike. With reference to paragraph 315 of its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, the Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, in all cases, sanctions imposed should not be disproportionate to the seriousness of the violations committed, and the authorities should not have recourse to measures of imprisonment for the mere fact of organizing or participating in a peaceful strike. Referring also to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Labour Act, 2006 (as amended in 2013), and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of relevant court decisions handed down under the abovementioned provisions which could define or illustrate their scope.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

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 The Committee previously asked the Government to supply information concerning the application in practice of the following provisions of the Penal Code, 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);
• – 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. Noting that the Government’s report contains no information in this regard, the Committee once 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(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. In its earlier comments, the Committee referred to the Communications and Transport Services Maintenance Ordinance (No. XII of 1957), which prohibits certain strikes. The Committee pointed out that such a prohibition, if enforceable with sanctions involving an obligation to work is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the above Ordinance has not been repealed. While noting the Government’s view expressed in the report that the provisions of the above Ordinance are not related to employment relationships, but established to improve the administrative system, the Committee recalls that according to Article 1(d) of the Convention no penal sanction involving compulsory labour should be imposed against a worker for having carried out a peaceful strike. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide, in its next report, information on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in conformity with the Convention, no penal sanction involving compulsory labour can be imposed against workers for peaceful participation in a strike, and that the Government will report the progress achieved in this regard.

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. While noting the Government’s statement in the report that the above Ordinance does not prohibit strikes under industrial relations, the Committee recalls that under Article 1(d) of the Convention no penalties involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for having participated in strikes. 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 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

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. For many years, the Committee has been referring to sections 16–20 of the Special Powers Act (No. XIV of 1974), under which penalties of imprisonment may be imposed on people who publish prejudicial reports or contravene orders for prior scrutiny and approval of certain publications or for the suspension or dissolution of certain associations. The Committee 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.

The Committee notes the Government’s view expressed in the report that the provisions in the Special Powers Act are not related to employment relationships, but established to improve the administrative system. The Committee recalls, in this regard, referring also to paragraphs 152–166 of its General Survey of 2007 on the eradication of forced labour, that 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. The Committee reiterates 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. Pending the amendment, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these provisions in practice, supplying copies of the court decisions and indicating the penalties imposed.

Article 1(c). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. For many years, the Committee has been referring 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:

• – 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 notes the Government’s indication that the Control of Employment Ordinance, 1965, has been promulgated during an exceptional period of war and therefore is no longer applicable in practice. It further notes the Government’s statement that the provisions in the Post Office Act, 1898, are not related to employment relationships, but established to improve the administrative system. While duly noting this information, the Committee observes that the above provisions 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. The Committee therefore reiterates the firm hope that the necessary measures will soon be taken to repeal or amend the above provisions of the Control of Employment Ordinance, 1965, and of the Post Office Act, 1898, in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention and the indicated practice.

The Committee previously 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 (failure to implement, or breach of, any settlement, award or decision), punishable with sanctions of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Act, 2006, is currently under review and that amendment proposals are being finalized. The Committee hopes that, in the course of the revision, sections 292 and 293 will be brought into conformity with the Convention, so that no sanctions involving compulsory labour can be imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline. It asks the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

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 notes the Government’s indication that a technical committee has been established to review the existing legal framework in the maritime sector, including the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983. It further notes the Government’s statement that the legislative revision process would take into account the need to align national legislation with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, (MLC, 2006), which Bangladesh intends to ratify. The Committee therefore trusts that the necessary amendments will be made to the Merchant Shipping Ordinance in the near future in order to ensure that breaches of labour discipline which do not endanger the safety of the vessel or the life or health of persons are not enforceable with sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour, and that seafarers would not be forcibly conveyed on-board ship to perform their duties. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 1(d). Penalties involving compulsory labour as a punishment for having participated in strikes. The Committee previously noted with regret that the Bangladesh Labour Act, adopted in 2006, does not contain any improvements as compared to the previous legislation in regard to the matters falling within the scope of the Convention. It noted, in particular, that sections 211(3) and (4) and 227(1)(c) of the 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.

While noting the Government’s repeated statement that such restrictions on the right to strike, which have been maintained in the Labour Act, 2006, are justified in the present socio-economic context of the country, the Committee recalls that Article 1(d) of the Convention prohibits the use of any form of forced or compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour, as a punishment for having participated in strikes. Noting also the Government’s indication that the Labour Act, 2006 is currently under review and that amendment proposals are being finalized, the Committee reiterates the firm hope, referring to its comments addressed to the Government under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (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.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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.