GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. HASAN MOVIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave at the instance of the Government is against the judgment and order dated 27 August 1989 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 674 of 1987 and eight others which were heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgment. Different cinema halls moved those Writ Petitions and obtained Rules calling in question the acceptance by the appellant the award given by the Minimum Wages Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) under section 5(1) of the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance in respect of the different categories of workers of the Cinema Halls in Bangladesh as contained in the Notification dated 1st August, 1987 being SRO No. 158.L187/Sha-10/ Nimna-19/87 and published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary. The High Court Division while discharging the Rules on contest, by the impugned judgment made an observation with regard to ¦....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....as awarded by the Board terming the same as travelling allowance to the effect that section 2(8)(b) of the Ordinance did not empower the Minimum Wages Board to fix any such travelling allowances and as such the recommendation made by the Board for travelling allowance of Tab 40.00 per month has been made without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

(2.) Leave was granted to consider as to whether the learned Judges of the High Court Division upon proper interpretation of the term ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....as travelling allowance legally declared that in view of the provision of section 2(8) (b) of the Ordinance the recommendation of the Board for such allowance was made without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

(3.) Mr. AW Bhuyan, learned Additional Attorney-General appearing for the appellant submits that the High Court Division is not correct in taking ¦ ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....as recommended by the Board for the Cinema Hall workers and accepted by the Government as Travelling allowance which means ....[VARNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]....does not fall within the section 2(8)(b) of the Ordinance. Mr. Bhuiyan submitted that such observation of the High Court Division in the impugned judgments has caused prejudice to the concerned workers and to that extent the impugned judgment needs to be modified.