Why case against Yunus over violation of labour law should not be dismissed, HC asks
An HC bench of Justice Md Ruhul Quddus and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das issued the ruling on Sunday
The High Court today issued a ruling as to why the case against Grameen Telecom chairman and Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus over violation of labour law will not be dismissed.
An HC bench of Justice Md Ruhul Quddus and Justice Ashish Ranjan Das issued the ruling on Sunday (23 July).
Department of Factories and Establishment, along with the inspector investigating the case, has been asked to respond to this rule in the Labour Court within the next two weeks.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
On 6 June, a Dhaka court ordered to begin trial against Nobel laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus in a case filed for violation of labour laws in Grameen Telecom.
Appellate Division Justice Md Nuruzzaman dismissed Dr Muhammad Yunus's leave to appeal against the dismissal of the application for cancellation of the case of violation of labour law on 8 May.
Earlier, on 17 August 2022, the High Court rejected the ruling on why the case filed against Dr Muhammad Yunus for violating labour laws should not be cancelled.
On 9 September 2021, the Directorate of Factories and Institutions of Dhaka filed a case against four people including Dr Muhammad Yunus for violating labour laws.
Arifuzzaman, a labour inspector of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments, filed this case.
The court issued summons for the defendants to appear in court.
The other accused in the case are Grameen Telecom Managing Director Ashraful Hasan, and Directors Noor Jahan Begum and Shahjahan. The three defendants also pleaded the case separately.
According to the case documents, the officials of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments visited Grameen Telecom and found some violations of labour laws.
101 workers were supposed to be made permanent, but they were not made permanent. Workers' fund and welfare fund have not been constituted. Besides, 5% of the company's dividend was supposed to be given to the workers, but it was not given to them. Based on these allegations, a case was filed against the concerned persons under criminal law.
