The legal status of contractual employees in Bangladesh continues to be a contentious area, frequently leading to litigation and interpretive uncertainty. In Motiur Rahman vs. Government of Bangladesh & Others*, where Barrister M. Saqiubuzzaman, appeared on behalf of Infrastructure Development Company Limited (IDCOL), the petitioner contested his termination from a project-based contractual role by filing a writ petition seeking reinstatement in service and a declaration that the termination was unlawful and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble High Court Division upon listening to the writ petitioner as well as his employer dismissed the petition, thereby affirming several foundational principles concerning the nature of contractual employment, the limits of constitutional remedies, and the non-regularization of project-based positions in the absence of statutory entitlement. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court Division also revisited a number of legal issues relating to invoking of writ jurisdiction in private employment disputes. In this case, firstly, the Court held that contractual employment does not create a vested right to continue beyond the agreed period of employment status. Secondly, The Court held that such matters fall outside the scope and ambit of Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Thirdly, The Court found no procedural unfairness or breach of Articles 27 or 31 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. Fourthly, The employment was tied to a specific project which had already concluded. Reinstatement was deemed legally and practically impossible and finally, the petitioner received all financial entitlements and settled accounts, which indicated acquiescence to termination and barred further legal challenge. The High Court Division further elaborated on the concept of “legitimate expectation” in relying another case wherein the petitioner’s expectation of being appointed as Chairman based solely on a recommendation was not deemed a legitimate expectation due to the absence of any legal basis in a legal context, clarified that such expectation must be founded on lawful grounds rather than mere aspirational hope. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in a recent Judgment said that sympathy, empathy or sentiment by itself, cannot be a ground for passing an order where the litigants miserably fail to establish legal right. It is true that the employees had been working for a long time, the same by itself would not be a ground for directing regularization of the service. The Judgment in Motiur Rahman’s case affirms that contractual employment is governed solely by the terms of the contract and does not create a right to continued service or reinstatement. It draws a clear line between private employment disputes and public law remedies, confirming that writ jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh is limited to cases involving statutory or constitutional violations. The Court emphasized procedural fairness and finality, particularly in project-based roles, and held that acceptance of financial entitlements signified acquiescence to termination. This decision strengthens the legal framework by clarifying the boundaries of writ jurisdiction and reinforcing the primacy of contractual terms in employment matters.
*Motiur Rahman v. Government of Bangladesh & Others, Writ Petition No. 2346 of 2019 Judgment Date: 30 November 2022 Bench: Justice Md. Khasruzzaman & Justice Md. Iqbal Kabir