Protection of Workers in Workplaces

PROTECTION OF WORKERS IN WORKPLACES: A COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF LABOUR LAWS OF THE UK, THE USA AND BANGLADESH

Dr. Parvez Ahmed*
Rehena Parvin**
ABSTRACT
Workplace safety and security has been considered a major issue of concern for
every country. Labour laws of every State provide a number of provisions in order
to ensure safe and secured workplace environment, proper administrative
functions, protection of labour rights and resolution of industrial disputes. The
industrialized countries, with the pace of time and need, have enacted and modified
their legal instruments to safeguard their workers. The developing countries have
also undertaken precautionary measures to reduce the workplace hazards. Bangla-
desh as a lower middle income country has emphasized industrialisation and enact-
ed labour related statues for the protection of workers in their workplaces. However,
recent tragic industrial incidents posited the weaknesses of labour laws for workers’
rights and very apparent leniency of implementation of those laws in workplaces.
Countries like the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), in
spite of their having up dated legal instruments, are not free from incidents of work-
place hazards, injuries and occupational deaths of workers. This article focuses the
relevant statutes of these three countries. It has evaluated the relevant statutory
provisions of the concerned Acts on the issue of workers’ better safety and tends to
suggest some improvements of those concerned laws.
Key Words: Workplace Safety and Security, The HSWA 1974, The CMCHA
2007, The OSH Act 1970, The BLA 2006, Public Interest Litigation.
1. INTRODUCTION
The safety and security of a worker in a workplace has become a global

concern. Two advanced industrialised countries of the world i.e. the UK and the
USA have enacted their labour laws with a view to providing maximum safety,
security and benefits to the workers. They update their labour laws with the chang-
ing situations whereas Bangladesh codified their labour laws in 2006 replacing as
many as 50 laws of the British colonial regime and the Pakistan period. By this
codification, Bangladesh covers most of the provisions of international standards
for labour rights i.e. SA 8000 of Social Accountability International (SAI), Base
Code of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), Fair Labor Association (FLA), Fair
Wear Foundation (FWF), Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI), World-
wide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP) and Joint Initiative on Corporate
* Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Green University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

** Assistant Professor, Department of Law & Muslim Jurisprudence, Islamic University,
Kushtia, Bangladesh.
93 Page
Green University Review of Social Sciences, Volume 02, Issue 01, June-2015
Accountability and Workers’ Rights (JO-IN)1. However the tragic incident of the
collapse of Rana Plaza, Savar, Bangladesh2 and fire incident in Tazreen Fashions,
Savar, Bangladesh3 blatantly represented the major flaws of the prevailing legal
safeguarding system under the labour laws of Bangladesh.
The workplace hazards both in fatal and non-fatal nature in the UK and the
USA are not uncommon. In the UK, an estimated 6,29,000 workers had suffered
from accidents at work in 2013 and 2014. Of these injuries: 2,03,000 led to over 3 days
absence from work; of which 1,48, 000 led to over 7 days absence. The provisional
figure for the number of workers fatally injured in 2014/15 is 142.4 In the United
States, a preliminary total of 4,679 fatal work injuries were recorded in 2014, an
increase of 2% over the revised count of 4,585 fatal work injuries in 2013, according
to results from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) conducted by the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.5
All these data reflect the inadequate safety measures provided by the statu-
tory provisions of these countries and demand of amendment of legal provisions.
Therefore, this article initiates with the analysis of two Acts of the UK i.e. the Health
and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007. It focuses on the relevant sections for the safety and security of
workers under those Acts and evaluates the effectiveness of those provisions. Then
the article proceeds through the analysis of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
1970 of the USA; the third part of the article concentrates on the laws of Bangladesh
on workplace safety i.e. the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 and the Bangladesh
National Building Code.
2. LAWS OF THE UK FOR THE SAFETY OF WORKERS AT WORKPLACES
The United Kingdom in 1974 has enacted the Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act (hereinafter referred to as the HSWA 1974) for workplace safety and security.
But, the HSWA 1974 was found to be inadequate to prosecute larger companies in
terms of offences of corporate homicide. For this, the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act was enacted in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the
CMCHA 2007) in order to prosecute the companies and to fill-up the loopholes of
the HSWA 1974.
2.1 The health and safety at work etc. Act 1974
As the primary piece of legislation, the HSWA 1974 has covered the occupa-
tional health and safety in the UK. Section 37 of the HSWA 1974 has declared rules
that may be elaborated as follows:
94 Page
Protection of Workers in Workplaces: A Comparative Study of Labour Laws of the UK, the USA and Bangladesh
“Where an offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance

of, or for any negligence of, any director, manager or other similar officer, he as well as the
body corporate shall be guilty of that offence. Moreover, where the affairs of a body corporate
are managed by its members with his functions of management he will also be liable as like
as a director of the body corporate.”
Section 2 of this Act sets out the general duties of employers to their
employees. It is the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practi-
cable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.6 This duty extends
to maintenance of plant, using, handling, storage and transport of articles, training
and supervision of employees, maintenance of a safe place for work and adequate
facilities and arrangements for the welfare of employees.7
This Act penalises employers who negligently fail to ensure the physical
safety of the workers in workplace. It also penalises (inter alia) employers and
self-employed persons for negligence in course of their businesses that create risk to
the health and safety anyone who comes into contact with them.8 It also penalises
occupiers of ‘non-domestic premises’ who negligently create risk to the health and
safety of those who come and work there,9 controllers of industrial premises who
negligently allow them to emit poisonous fumes10 and those who negligently
design, manufacture, import or supply dangerous equipment for the work place or
dangerous fairground equipment.11
Two other relevant sections are s.7 and s.36. Section 7 places a primary duty
on employees to take reasonable care of themselves and other persons and to co-op-
erate with others to enable them to carry out their duties. In addition, section 33
identifies several situations where an individual may be personally liable, e.g. oper-
ating without a required licence, contravening the terms of a licence, dealing
improperly with explosives, contravening a prohibition notice and misusing certain
specified information.12 All these sections can be relevant in considering liability for
work-related personal injury.
On the other hand, in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 impos-
es duties and liabilities upon owners, directors, managers of the company and uses
one term ‘employer’ to include all of them.13 In order to make a company liable for
corporate killing or any type of injury of workers, the Act follows the same view of
the HSWA 1974.14
2.2 The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
The CMCHA 2007 received Royal assent on 26 July 2007. The Act retains
95 Page
much of the Common law, for example, the need to establish a duty of care and
breach of duty. However, it replaced the Common law offence of manslaughter by
gross negligence as it applied to companies and created a new statutory offence of
corporate manslaughter in England and Wales.15 Thus senior managers cannot
avoid prosecution by delegating their duties down the hierarchical order.16 The
CMCHA 2007 makes an organisation liable for corporate manslaughter17 and men-
tions that this offence can also be committed by certain governmental departments,
any police force and a partnership; or trade union or employers’ association.18
As per this Act, corporations can be companies limited by share or guaran-

tee and may be foreign incorporations. Bodies incorporated by Royal Charter or
private Act of Parliament, local councils and universities are also included. Limited
liability partnerships and registered societies and Scottish charitable incorporated
organisations are also corporations under the provisions of this Act.19 This Act
provides that an organisation is guilty of an offence only if the way its activities are
managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element in the
breach which causes a person’s death, and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant
duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.20
The Act defines the senior management of a company in two distinct ways.
Firstly, as persons who play a significant role in the making of decisions about how
the whole or a substantial part of the company's activities are to be managed or
organised. Secondly, as persons who play a significant role in the actual managing
or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.21 Exactly who is a
member of an organization’s senior management depends on the nature and scale
of an organization’s activities. Apart from directors and similar senior management
positions, roles likely to be under consideration include regional managers in
national organisations and the managers of different operational divisions.22
Central to the new offence is the concept of ‘relevant duty of care’. A ‘duty
of care’ is an obligation that an organisation has to take reasonable steps to ensure a
person’s safety.23
The offence is concerned with the corporate liability of the organisation

itself and does not apply to individual directors, senior managers or other individu-
als; nor is it possible to convict an individual of assisting or encouraging the
offence.24 However, individuals can be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaugh-
ter or culpable homicide and for health and safety offences. The Act does not change
this and prosecutions against individuals will continue to be taken where there is
sufficient evidence.
96 Page
An organisation convicted of the new offence can receive a fine.25 There is

no upper limit to what this can be. It can also be attributed a publicity order.26 This
requires an organisation to publicise the fact of its conviction and certain details of
the offence, in a way specified by the court. Additionally, the court can impose a
remedial order, requiring the organisation to address the cause of the fatal injury.
Determining the amount of a fine will be a matter for the courts and any sentencing
guidelines.
2.3 Weaknesses of the HSWA 1974
The HSWA 1974 has been meant to prevent injuries and fatalities in the
workplace and to convict the companies and persons liable for those casualties, but
in reality, it has failed to provide adequate remedy.
One important point that has to be kept in mind is that the application of the
HSWA 1974 is limited, particularly in respect of transport, which is largely the
concern of other special legislation.27 For example, Merchant Shipping, Civil Avia-
tion and Road Traffic Acts govern the conduct of ships, aeroplanes and motor vehi-
cles while in transit. The HSWA 1974 has only a limited relevance e.g. handling
cargo when the vehicle is not in transit. The whole purpose of the HSWA 1974 is to
avoid the occurrence of personal injury by imposing duties intended so to control
hazards as to eliminate risk ‘so far as practicable’.28
A major weakness of this Act is that it has failed to convict any large compa-
ny and its top management or directors for corporate manslaughter. The law itself
looks for the explanation of the judiciary for identifying the directing mind behind
the company and the court miserably failed to identify the directing minds of large
companies.
Until recently, most of the offences under the HSWA 1974 were only
punishable with fines; though a change in the law has now made them punishable
with imprisonment.29 The average fine imposed on an individual for a s. 7 offence is
£679, for a s. 36 offence £1400 and for a s.37 offence £2220.30 In the case of corporate
liability for offences under the HSWA 1974, there has been ongoing concern to
ensure whether the level of the fine is appropriate. In R. v F Hows & Sons (Engineers)
Ltd,31 the Court of Appeal noted that:
“....... as the circumstances of individual cases varied ‘almost infinitely’ and very few
cases reached the Court of Appeal, it was difficult for judges and magistrates, who only rarely
dealt with these cases, to have an instinctive feel for the appropriate level of penalty.”
97 Page
Another problem with the HSWA 1974, is that it is enforced by the Health
and Safety Executive (the HSE) which adopts a compliance strategy and prefers
advice and assistance to companies over prosecution. As a result, the HSE only
brings a prosecution in some 20% of cases where death has occurred at workplace
and in 1% of cases after a major injury has been reported.32 The HSE's compliance
approach is designed to achieve its primary objective of securing the prevention of
harm and the promotion of legal standards through engagement with stakehold-
ers.33 Thus, prosecution is not a favoured course of action for the HSE and even then
it is used as a mechanism for securing compliance unlike prosecution for the crimi-
nal offence of corporate manslaughter which is smeared with a retributive under-
tone.34
Even where a charge is brought, the HSE may not always obtain the results
as seen in cases decided recently by the Court of Appeal. In R v HTM Ltd,35 the court
rejected the HSE's submission that evidence of foreseeability should be ruled out. In
R v Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Services Ltd36 and R v Transco Plc,37 the Court of
Appeal reduced the fines imposed on the defendants.
Several of the statutory provisions of the HSWA 1974 require the accused to
do something “so far as is reasonably practicable”. Section 40 makes it clear that for
breaches of the general duties, it is for the accused to prove that these requirements
have been met. The reverse onus applies to breaches of the duties laid down by ss.
3-7 of the Act38 as section 3(2) imposes general duties on self-employed person, s. 4
imposes general duties on persons in relation to those who are not their employees,
s. 5 provides duties upon supervisors of certain premises and s. 7 imposes duty to
every employee to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself. The
phrase in s. 40 ‘it shall be for the accused to prove’, places upon him the legal or
persuasive burden of proof on a balance of probabilities; not the higher burden
normally placed on a prosecution (beyond reasonable doubt).39 This provision
appears to have created insuperable difficulty with regard to prosecution. Mackay J
ruled:
It would be a quite unacceptable position for the jury to be told to consider reason-
able practicability in the predicate offence.... on one basis (namely that the onus of proof was
on the defendant company) and then having done so and decided the company was guilty,
told to reconsider anew the question of whether the predicate offence had been committed,
this time as an ingredient of [a personal charge] and to do so on a different and opposite
basis.40
2.4 The Limitations of the CMCHA 2007
It is evident that the Corporate Homicide and Corporate Manslaughter Act

2007 introduces a new offence because of the serious practical difficulties in apply
98 Page
ing the existing law of manslaughter to corporate bodies. The new offence proposes
formative changes designed to circumvent this issue by introducing a test for liabili-
ty based on a ‘management failure’ to adequately control risks to health and safety,
intended to make the prosecution of corporate defendants more workable.41 None-
theless, the Act is not free from criticism.
Section 1 (1) of the CMCHA 2007 provides that corporate homicide is

committed by an organisation if the way in which its activities are managed or
organised (a) causes a person’s death and (b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant
duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased. This brief statement conceals
a considerable degree of complexity. The organisation cannot be convicted of the
offence unless the way in which its activities are managed or organised “by its
senior management” is a substantial element in the breach of duty. There is, there-
fore, a need for the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of a
causal link between the death and the particular gross breach of duty to which
senior management have substantially contributed.42
One aspect of the CMCHA 2007 that has generated much criticism was the
introduction of the senior management failure test. Clarkson has observed that the
insistence on identifying the senior managers ‘seems unduly restrictive and threat-
ens to open the door to endless arguments in court as to whether certain persons do
or do not constitute senior managers’.43 Further problems could arise in determin-
ing whether certain persons played a “significant role” in decision making about a
“substantial part” of the company's activities.44
Furthermore, it has been posited that the current definition of senior man-
agement allows fluidity to reflect the fact that management decisions are made at
different levels in different organisations.45 Similar criticisms have been raised by
Bebb, who argues that ‘the endless legal debate as to whether a defendant is so
senior as to embody the company will be replaced by a similar debate as to whether
or not the defendants are senior managers’.46
Section 19(1) of the CMCHA 2007 states that an organisation can be charged
with both corporate homicide and health and safety offence arising out of some or
all of the same circumstances and the jury may be invited to return a verdict on each
charge if the interests of justice so require. Section 19(2) states that an organisation
can be convicted of corporate homicide and later be prosecuted for health and safety
offence on some or all of the same circumstances, if the interests of justice so require.
Subsection (1) is unobjectionable; indeed it is competent to libel the charges cumula-
tively.47 If, for example, the jury does not find a gross breach, or a causal link
between that breach and the victim's death, or the substantial involvement of senior
99 Page
managers, it can still convict the organisations of the less serious offence. But
subsection (2) allows conviction and punishment for causing death by gross breach
of duty and then conviction all over again on the same facts. This is not novel but it
is highly unusual.48
Two other related principles that the case laws have established appear to
be relevant here.49 Firstly, there should be no double conviction on the same species
facti.50 Secondly, the rule ne bis in idem51 arguably applies. Article 4(1) of the Seventh
Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 expresses the latter
rule: ‘No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings
under the jurisdiction of the same state for an offence for which he has already been
finally acquitted or convicted … .’ That Convention right is not scheduled to the
Human Rights Act 1998 but the United Kingdom could be in breach of it if more
recent Strasbourg case laws were to be applied.52 If the two offences have the same
essential elements albeit with (minor) differences, Art. 4(1) can be engaged. In any
event, there remains the difficult issue of punishment. Present practice is against
consecutive prison terms53 and presumably also double fining. Since there must be
separate penalties imposed for separate statutory contraventions54 that presents a
quandary for the trial judge.
2.5 A Relative Evaluation of the CMCHA 2007 and the HSWA 1974
Based on the above analysis, it can be contented that there have been
increasing demands for tightening the law on corporate manslaughter, in particular,
in order to successfully prosecute company directors or managers for corporate
death. Despite some weaknesses with regard to the Court of Appeal’s recent
decisions,55 it is submitted that in case of injury of workers or employees of a small
company, the prosecution under the HSWA 1974 can still be an alternative method.
It is evident that the offence of corporate killing represents an important

development and will produce significant changes in the way that work-related
fatalities are handled under the law.56 The CMCHA 2007 is intended to address
important problems with the current scheme of liability. The rationale of the new
offence is primarily coercive in nature and aims to provide a retributive response to
corporate wrongdoing. By punishing the offending company, rather than individu-
als within it, and providing a authoritative response, the Act conveys the message
to other companies to improve their health and safety provisions and aims to accu-
rately hold the culpable corporate defendants responsible. Moreover, the statutory
duties imposed on directors and senior managers for the proper and effective
discharge of their health and safety responsibilities are not static. It is a fast moving
area of the law. It can be extended or amended at any time.
100 Page
In fact, one legislative change cannot fulfil all the lacunae of the law. The
CMCHA 2007 is a new law which has obviously removed some notable deficiencies
of previous laws. The legislators and policy makers need to concentrate on and
think about these issues which have been discussed in this article. In February 2011,
the first corporate prosecution under the much heralded Corporate Manslaughter
and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 ended with a fine of £385,000 against Cotswold
Geotechnical Holdings.57
3. LAWS OF THE USA FOR THE SAFETY OF WORKERS AT WORKPLACE
The Department of Labor (DOL) of the United States of America adminis-

ters and enforces more than 180 federal laws. These mandates and the regulations
that implement them cover many workplace activities for about 10 million employ-
ers and 125 million workers.58
The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 (FLSA),59 the Occupational Safety and
Health Act 1970 (OSH Act 1970),60 the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensa-
tion Act (LHWCA),61 the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 1990 (RECA),62 the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) 1916 as amended in 1974 ,63 the
Black Lung Benefits Act 1973 (BLBA),64 the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act 1974 (ERISA),65 the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
(COBRA),66 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996
(HIPAA),67 the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 1983
(MSPA),68 the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act),69 the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 1988 (WARN)70 are some of the USA’s
principal statutes most commonly applicable to businesses, job seekers, workers,
retirees, contractors and grantees.
3.1 The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970
Primarily, this article concentrates on the Occupational Safety and Health

Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the OSH Act 1970). This Act is applied by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Safety and health condi-
tions in most private industries are regulated by the OSHA or OSHA-approved
state programs, which also cover public sector employers. Employers covered by
the OSH Act 1970 must comply with the regulations and the safety and health
standards promulgated by the OSHA. Employers also have a general duty under
the OSH Act 1970 to provide their employees with work and a workplace free from
serious hazards. The OSHA enforces the Act through workplace inspections and
investigations. Compliance assistance and other cooperative programmes are also
available.71 In general, the OSH Act 1970 covers all employers and their employees
in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. territories.72
101 Page
The Act was passed to assure safe and healthy working conditions for
workers. This Act encourages every state of the USA to assure safe and healthy
workplace.73 The Act authorises enforcement of occupational safety and health
standards. It also provides for research, information, education, and training in the
field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes.74
The Act defines an employer as "any person engaged in a business affecting

commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States or any State
or political subdivision of a State."75 Therefore, the Act applies to employers and
employees of various fields such as manufacturing, construction, long shoring,
agriculture, law and medicine, charity and disaster relief, organised labour, and
private education. The Act establishes a separate program for federal government
employees. It also extends coverage to state and local government employees only
through the states with OSHA-approved plans.76
Employers have certain responsibilities and rights under the OSH Act 1970.
Each employer will comply with occupational safety and health standards and
ensure a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are caus-
ing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.77 At the
same time, an employer has the right to seek advice and off-site consultation regard-
ing job safety and health standard. He can apply to OSHA for a temporary variance
from a standard if unable to comply with and can take an active role in developing
safety and health standards.78
To enforce its standards, under the Act, an OSHA compliance officer is

authorised to enter any factory or workplace. The officer can also inspect an investi-
gate any such place of employment and all pertinent conditions, structures,
machines, apparatus, devices, equipment and materials therein, and to question
privately any such employer, owner, operator, agent or employee.79
If any employer violate the provisions of this Act in that time, the autho-
rised inspecting officer may impose a fine starting from $5,000 up to $70,000.80 A
willful and repeated violation of any provision of this Act invites maximum penalty
upon the employers.
The violation of any provisions which has a direct relationship to job safety
and health may invite a penalty up to $7,000 by the discretionary power of the inves-
tigation officer. In case of any serious violation of any provision, the employer must
face a penalty up to $7,000.81 For a criminal conviction, the fine is up to $20,000 and
a maximum imprisonment of one year.82
102 Page
3.2 Lacunae of the OSH Act 1970
Under the OSH Act 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion (OSHA) is responsible for preventing workplace injuries and deaths and ensur-
ing the health and safety of workers of the USA. The continuing health and safety
dangers in workplaces over the past several decades demonstrate that OSHA is not
very successful in fulfilling its mandate. The process by which this Act is applied are
outdated, under funded and in desperate need of more manpower.83
As per the results from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI)
conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2014 total numbers of fatal work
injuries were recorded as 4,679 which was an increase of 2 percent over the revised
count of 4,585 fatal work injuries in 2013.84 Moreover, nearly 3.1 million nonfatal
workplace injuries and illnesses were reported among private industry employers
in 2010. A total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were recorded; down from a total of 4,551
fatal work injuries reported for 2009.85 Nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses
among private industry employers in 2008 occurred at a rate of 3.9 cases per 100
equivalent full-time workers-a decline from 4.2 cases in 2007. Similarly, the number
of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses reported in 2008 declined to 3.7
million cases, compared to 4 million cases in 2007.86
• Inadequate Numbers of OSHA Inspectors
OSHA enforces its standards primarily by conducting workplace inspec-

tions to monitor compliance. When an inspector finds a violation, OSHA issues a
fine and citation (notice) and gives the employer a deadline by which to fix the prob-
lem.87 However, enforcement requires workplace inspections and since there
cannot be an OSHA inspector at every workplace, OSHA has had enforcement
problems from its inception nowadays.
• Poor Enforcement of Occupational Safety and Health Standards
However, even in cases where occupational safety and health standards are
promulgated under the Act, they are defeated by poor enforcement. In 2005, an
explosion killed 15 workers and injured many others at a British Petroleum Refinery
in Texas City, Texas.88 OSHA had not done a single planned comprehensive inspec-
tion of process safety at any U.S. oil refinery between 1995 and 2005, when the
explosion occurred.89 According to the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation
Board’s report, the explosion was totally preventable and OSHA’s capability to
inspect highly hazardous facilities and to enforce process safety regulations is insuf-
ficient.90
103 Page
• Difficulty in Indentifying Hazards
Another impasse that any employee may face is that of identification of the
hazard. On a construction site it may be apparent that the scaffolding looks rickety;
however, in factories where pesticides or chemicals are made, the safety hazard may
not be apparent to the naked eye.
• Unwillingness of Employees to Inform the OSHA
Even if an employee discovers that he is working with an unsafe chemical

or in an unhealthy situation, he faces a second juncture: alerting someone in a
position to fix the problem. Workers face high costs in alerting the authority for at
least three reasons. Firstly, there is the question of how to file a complaint. If
employees are aware of a hazard, they may not know that they have a right to
complain to an agency official or they may not know the proper methods for doing
so.91 Secondly, even if a worker files a formal complaint with OSHA, this does not
guarantee a site visit by inspectors.92 Thirdly, even if an employee learns of OSHA
and his rights and therefore knows how to file a complaint, he still may be wary of
doing so for fear of losing his job due to retaliation.93
• Absence of Higher Level of Penalty
Following an inspection, OSHA has the power to fine employers for their
violations of standards.94 Fines are intended to punish the violators and to deter
future violations by that employer and others in the industry. “[T]he higher the
penalty charged for a violation, the greater the incentive for employers to voluntari-
ly comply with standards.”95 The penalty is directly correlated to the number of
violations found and their severity.96 So the rigor of the inspection is important in
determining how heavy a fine will be levied.
• Abatement of Penalty Without Physical Verification of the Workplace
Although penalties may initially be harsh, they are often adjusted down-
ward at OSHA’s discretion.97 Employers can appeal a penalty98 and employees have
the right to participate in any hearing about the reduction. At this time, OSHA may
also request that the management responds with “letters detailing specific abate-
ment actions and the date abatement was achieved for each violation and notes that
a follow-up inspection may occur if there is no response.” If OSHA does not receive
a letter from the employer stating that abatement has been achieved, an OSHA
official is directed to verify abatement by telephone.99
104 Page
An employer may satisfy the abatement requirement by simply sending a

letter with no documentation or calling the OSHA office to report that the hazard is
gone.100 Of course, the only way OSHA can be certain that an employer has discon-
tinued a dangerous practice is for an inspector to visit the workplace. Because of the
lack of inspectors, however, the OSHA must rely on employers to remedy the situa-
tion and need to report that they have done so. Therefore, there exists a rampant
possibility of unsafe workplaces.
4. LAWS OF BANGLADESH FOR WORKPLACE SAFETY
The laws of Bangladesh primarily emanated from the British laws. Though
from 1947 to 1971, the political, social, cultural and religious situation of Bangladesh
had been changed rapidly, the reliance on British laws was not reduced. Bangladesh
used to follow labour related laws which were enacted during Pakistan period and
British colonial period.
4.1 The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006
The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the BLA 2006) is
the primary law for the health and safety of workers in Bangladesh. This Act has
imposed obligations upon employers and others towards workers in most industri-
al and commercial premises.101 Prior to the BLA 2006, the law relating to the protec-
tion of workers from health and safety hazards was contained in the Factories Act
1965 and the Factories Rules 1979.
The BLA 2006 consolidated over 25 Acts and Regulations including the
Factories Act 1965 and the scope of legal protection has been extended beyond
‘factories’ to cover all ‘establishments’. Establishments are defined widely to
include shops, hotels, restaurants, factories, plantations, docks, transport services,
construction sites and any premises in which workers are employed for the purpose
of carrying on any industry.102
The Act imposes duties and liabilities upon owners, directors, managers of
the company and uses one term ‘employer’ to include all of them.103 In order to
make a company liable for corporate killing or any type of injury of workers, the Act
takes the same view of the HSWA 1974.104
The BLA 2006 provides necessary foundation for safety. The general provi-
sions of the Act relate to fencing of machinery, precautions against fire and safety of
buildings and machinery. According to this Act, the physical structure of the build-
ing should be safe; there should be effective precautions in the case of fire and
105 Page
machinery were necessary. The Act requires employers to provide basic safety
measures which have been stated under sections 61-78.
4.1.1 Safety Provisions under the BLA 2006
The Act provides general obligation to the employers by stipulating that no

building, wall, tunnel, road, gallery, stairway, or other structure, shall be construct-
ed, situated or maintained in any factory in such manner that may cause risk of
physical injuries.105 Each establishment has to be equipped with fire alarms and fire
exits and at least one alternative stairway connected to each floor as a means of safe
exit.106 It is obligatory to the employers to fence the machinery. All shafts, clutches,
driving straps, every set screw, revolving shaft, spindle wheel or pinion and all spur
must be securely fenced.107
To ensure the workplace safety, the Act instructs the employers to regularly
examine the machinery which is in motion, self-acting machine, cranes, hoist, lifts
and other revolving machinery and operation of these machinery must be conduct-
ed by trained persons with proper precautions and protection.108 Section 75 of the
BLA 2006 provides the provisions regarding the safety to the eyes of the workers. It
also prohibits to worker to engage in duties where the fumes are likely to be inflam-
mable without precautions.
The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 ensures some special provisions regard-
ing the health issue as well as safety for the employees under chapter VII in sections
79-88. According to this chapter, the workers should be notified such operations
which are hazardous and also harmful for their health. The employee has right to
know the information of certain accident and dangerous occurrences which might
happen to their workplaces.
The women workers are prohibited to work in motion of any part of the
machinery near to the dangerous machine and underground and under water.109
Under the provisons of this chapter of the BLA 2006, Government can specify any
operation that exposes workers to a serious risk of bodily injury, poisoning or
disease and declare those activities as hazardous.110 The Government can make
rules for securing the safety of persons employed on factory or industrial establish-
ments.111
106 Page
The safety provisions under the BLA 2006 can be tabled as follows:
Table 1: The safety provisions under the BLA 2006

Sl. No Safety Issue Relevant section
01 Precautions in case of fire s.62

02 Fencing of Machinery s.63
03 Safe working next to machinery s.64
04 Suitable Striking gear s.65
05 Safe ‘self acting machines’ s. 66
06 Casing and guards for new machines s. 67
07 Precautions in relation to cranes, lifts and hoists s. 68 and s.69/ss 68-69
08 Precautions relating to revolving machinery s.70
09 Safe use of pressure plants s.71
10 Safe means of access s.72
11 Covering and fencing of dangerous spaces s.73
12 Precautions relating to carrying of weights s.74
13 Precautions against exposure to dangerous fumes in confine s.77
space
14 Safety measures relating to explosive or flammable gas s.78
Table 2: Special provisions relating to health, hygiene and safety

Sl. No Provision Relevant Section
01 Dangerous operations s. 79
02 Notice to be given of accidents s.80
03 Notice of certain dangerous occurrences s.81
04 Notice of certain disease s. 82
05 Restriction of employment of women in certain work s. 87
4.2 Bangladesh National Building Code 2006
Alongside the BLA 2006, the law relating to the safety of construction work-
ers is set out in the Bangladesh National Building Code 2006 (hereinafter referred to
as the BNBC). Being initially drafted in 1993 by the Housing and Building Research
Institute, the BNBC only finally became law 13 years later as a regulation under
powers set out in section 18A of the Building Construction Act 1952.
The BNBC requires “the owner of the property” under construction to

comply with the obligations in the Code. The owner is included not only private
persons or government departments but also developers. In addition, engineers,
architects and planners must ensure compliance with the Code.112 The duties relat-
ed to workers’ health, safety and welfare are contained in four chapters in Part 7 of
the BNBC. The national code also provides guidance for service related facilities like
electrical, mechanical, sanitary and other services.
In 2010, the 2nd edition of BNBC has been published. The new edition of the
Code consists of three volumes instead of one volume, unlike the previous one, with
107 Page
a view to simplify the relevant regulations. A new organization for building code
administration has been proposed in the 2nd edition of the Code that was proposed
in the 1993 Code. New forms of permit and inspection have been introduced. In
modifying the building code, BNBC has taken into account the RAJUK (Rajdhani
Unnoyon Kartipaksha) regulations. Classification of occupation has been changed
through consulting different international Codes.
Types of building construction have been broadly classified into two

groups: non combustible and combustible types. Precautionary requirements have
been modified based on the revised building occupancy classification. Different
designs have been considered. A new construction technology in the name of
‘confined machinery’ has been introduced in the chapter of machinery structures.
Provisions for environmental protection and high rise buildings have been intro-
duced. Minor changes have been made regarding storage, handling practices and
supply issue of fuel and gas.113
4.3 Shortcomings of the BLA 2006
Though it is said that the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 is a strong piece of
legislation which covers the majority of the international standards,114 Bangladeshi
workers continue to face dire conditions without effective enforcement of it. In fact,
every year in Bangladesh thousands of workers either die or become injured in their
workplaces. There are fatal problems in the enforcement of the existing labour laws.
It is proved that the laws are inadequate to many extents to address the need of the
workers.
• Scope of Application Needs to Be Extended
The BLA 2006 does not apply to most government bodies or certain kinds of
non-for profit organisations or educational and research institutions115 and thereby
leaves a large numbers of workplaces outside the ambit of this Act. Moreover, the
law has no clear provisions on (i) specific weight limit (for load carried by workers
in any factory) according to age, condition and sex; (ii) ratio of alternative stair as
precaution in case of fire and other apparatus against the number of workers; and
(iii) workers-toilet ratio.
• Inadequate Numbers of Inspectors and Lack of Training
The BLA 2006 entrusts powers and functions to the factory inspectors for
fulfilling the purposes of this Act. The duties of the inspectors cover inspection and
examination of any workplace, investigation of registers, certificates, notices and
108 Page
documents necessary for ensuring safety and security of workers, taking statements
of any person to find out the causes in violation of the Act, lodging complaints to the
Labour Court against any person with regard to commission of any offence under
this Act.116 But there are only few inspectors employed who are solely responsible
for health or safety issues within a huge number of factories for the whole of Bangla-
desh, which is mere a story of dismay.117
Therefore, adequate numbers of inspectors should be appointed as per rule

and proper training, transport facilities, equipments etc. should be provided to
them so that they can carry out their enforcement powers properly. Recently the
Government has appointed 110 Labour inspectors and short training to them has
been carried out118 but neither the number of inspectors nor their training is suffi-
cient.
• Necessity of Additional Labour Courts
The BLA 2006 empowers the Labour Courts to adjudicate disputes and
offences under this Act.119 But there are only seven labour courts in Bangladesh;
three are based in Dhaka, two in Chittagong, one in Rajshahi and one in Khulna. In
addition, there is only one Labour Appellate Court based in Dhaka.120 The absence
of an adequate number of courts and specially trained judges clearly constitutes a
serious barrier to access to justice. The additional labour courts in other major
industrial towns and cities are necessary with speedy end of disputes and appropri-
ate resolution with satisfactory compensation.
• Effectiveness of The Labour Court
Only the increase of number of labour courts is not enough, the effective-
ness of the labour courts has to be improved. Special lawyers may be appointed who
are skilled in labour laws and sufficient judicial officers may be appointed for the
smooth functioning of the labour courts. Industrial police unit in every police
station may be formed who will investigate the industrial accidents and offences
related to this. The case log in labour courts must be removed by disposing the cases
quickly and effectively.
• Culpability for the Deaths and Adequacy of Law
It is really frustrating to find out that the law itself accounts for the death
and injuries of workers. Deaths from electrocution in factory and whilst working
outside factory, excavating, collecting stones, deaths from falling heights outside of
construction sites etc. are not covered by the BLA 2006 or the BNBC. In case of
109 Page
deaths during loading and unloading of goods, partial protection is provided. There
is protection in the BLA 2006 against carrying heavy loads, but there is no require-
ment for employers to establish safe methods of doing this work. In many cases, it
was not clear whether the law covered the circumstances that resulted in the death
e.g. fire from gas link, miscellaneous gas cylinder explosion.
• Obligations to ‘Employers’ Not to ‘Occupiers’
Instead of imposing obligations upon ‘occupiers’ of factories and their man-

agers, the BLA 2006 imposes health and safety duties upon ‘employers’. In Bangla-
desh, in factories or construction sites, workers are not employed directly by the
‘occupier’ of the premises, but by labour contractors who have no control at all over
the establishment where their employees are working. Requiring labour contractors
to provide adequate ventilation or appropriate fire escapes or to ensure that there
are guards on the machine is clearly irrelevant.121
• Provision Of Institutionalized Training and Issuance of Certificate on the Level

of Training:
The BLA does not (a) impose a general duty upon occupiers to provide
workers a safe place of work, (b) impose any duty to provide training, instruction,
or supervision in relation to health and safety risks though it is clear from many of
the investigations undertaken that the provision of training and instruction would
have prevented many casualties.
• Legal Reform Relating to Other Types of Works
`The BLA 2006 excludes workers involved in certain work activities from receiving
compensation e.g. domestic workers, workers involved in loading and unloading
and cutting mud. The employers of these sectors are not bound to follow the safety
instruction and amount of compensation if/when any accident occurs. So the work-
ers of these sectors remain beyond the legal protection under the BLA 2006.
• Amount of Compensation
The amount of compensation that has to be paid is 1 lakh taka (100,000 BDT)
irrespective of the income that the person was receiving. In the Workmen’s Com-
pensation Act 1923, the amount of compensation that had to be paid was linked to
the monthly income of the worker. So if, for example, the worker received 300 taka
per month, the dependents received 19,000 taka. This is a ratio of 1 to 63. In effect,
this is five years of salary. This would suggest therefore that a worker receiving a
110 Page
taka equivalent of 2000 taka per month should receive 126,000 taka, and a worker
receiving an equivalent 3000 taka per month should receive 189,000 taka and so on.
The level that is currently set is far less than the level set 85 years ago in
1923. Consideration should be given to linking levels of compensation to 64 times
the monthly salary equivalent (i.e. five years of monthly salary) to a maximum level
of compensation set at something at 640,000 taka (which is five years of salary if the
salary was 10,000 taka per month).
4.4 Weaknesses of the Bangladesh National Building Code (The BNBC)
The BNBC had been initially drafted in 1993 by the Housing and Building
Research Institute, Bangladesh but did not have the force of law. 13 years later and
without any consideration of whether any revisions were required, it was made into
law. Only a very small part of the BNBC deals with issues of worker health, safety
and welfare and these are also rather undeveloped. Moreover, the Code has become
very ineffective for a number of reasons which may be pointed out as follows:
• No Agency for Enforcement:
At present, there is no agency empowered to enforce the Code. According

to the BNBC, the Government will establish a new or designate an existing agency
responsible for enforcement of this Code with a given area of jurisdiction.122 How-
ever this has not happened yet and RAJUK officials (responsible in Dhaka for
enforcement of the 1952 Act, under which the Code was enacted) and Inspectors do
not enforce the part of the Code relating to health and safety.
In a writ petition before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh, several human rights groups have challenged the failure of the Govern-
ment to establish such a body. Thus, absence of regulatory authority to care for all
safety aspects of building as per the BNBC is a major concern. Section 2.6 of Part 2
of the BNBC only provides that violation of the Code will be an offence and the
authority shall take legal action. However, it prescribes no procedure for institution
of legal proceedings, which need to be addressed.
• Incorporation of Planning Aspects in the BNBC
The BNBC has dealt only with construction, structure, material, geo-techni-
cal, seismic aspects, etc. of development. The BNBC has left out the planning aspects
of development as is evident from section (f). All these planning and development
factors need to be incorporated in the BNBC, if it is to produce a safe and livable
environment at all.
111 Page
• No Environmental Issue
Apparently existing BNBC provides insignificant consideration on environ-

mental influences on planning, design, construction and selection of construction
material for buildings.
4.5 Public Interest Litigations (PIL) on Workplace Safety in Bangladesh
To monitor the implementation of safety laws and regulations under the

BLA 2006 and to hold state bodies responsible for worker’s safety, different NGOs
have filed Public Interest Litigations (PIL). Recent litigation included petitions
regarding collapses and fires in garments factories and construction standards
under the National Building Construction Code, 2006. In these petitions, the High
Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh order the Government to
ensure compliance with safety laws and investigate such incidents and prosecute
those responsible for deaths and injuries of workers.
On 24.11.12, more than 110 people died due to a fire breaking out at the
Tazreen Fashion Limited located at Nisuchintapur, Ashulia, Dhaka and a PIL was
filed. In ASK, BLAST and others vs. Bangladesh and others123 [Tazreen Garments’
Case], the petitioners argued that the concerned garments factory did not maintain
any proper fire safety measures as mentioned in Fire Service Ordinance 1959, the
Bangladesh Labour Code 2006. They also argued that the concerned government
authorities failed to perform their service duties, and that the failure of both were
the main causes behind this accident. They prayed that effective enforcement of
applicable laws on workplace safety be ensured with a view to preventing any
future deaths and injuries of workers from fire. The petitioners also stated that these
accidents violate the Constitutional rights of workers as guaranteed in Articles 11,
14, 15, 21, 27, 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
On 26th November, 2012 the High Court Division of Bangladesh Supreme

Court issued a Rule Nisi in response to the said writ petition by issuing Rule calling
upon the respondents to show cause within four weeks as to why they should not
be directed to prosecute and punish people responsible for the fire.
In ASK, BLAST and others vs. Bangladesh and others124 [KTS Garments Fire
Case], a four-storied building situated at the BSCIC Industrial Area in Chittagong
and used as the factory of KTS Textile and Garments caught fire and 57 workers
died. At the time of the fire, the main gate was closed as per the direction of the man-
agement and there was no emergency exit. Many of the workers, finding no route of
escape, simply burned to death and their bodies were found in the staircase, on the
floor and on the window grilles.
112 Page
The petitioners argued that the failure of the respondents to ensure compli-
ance with fire safety measures, the failure to prosecute the persons responsible for
the deaths and injuries suffered by the workers and the failure of the statutory
bodies to discharge their functions under health and safety, workers’ rights and
environmental laws constituted violations of the right to life and to be treated in
accordance with law as guaranteed under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution.
The High Court issued a Rule Nisi 16.03.2006 calling upon the respondents
to show cause as to why the authorities concerned should not be directed to take
necessary action as required by law to effectively investigate, prosecute and punish
those responsible for deaths and injuries of the victims of fire at KTS Garments in
Chittagong. The Court also directed the KTS authorities to submit a report of a
complete account of the amount paid to the victims as compensation. The Court
further directed them to ensure medical treatment of the victims of the fire.
In Sramik Nirapatta Forum and others v. Bangladesh and others125 (Collapse of

Spectrum Sweater Factory Building), a writ petition was moved on 24 May, 2005
seeking judicial intervention to redress the grievances of the victims of the collapse
of the building of Spectrum Sweater Industries Ltd. at Palashbari, Savar that took
place on the early hours of 11 April, 2005. Filed at the instance of 4 injured workers
and 9 rights based organizations working under the umbrella of Sramik Nirapatta
Forum, the petition further sought direction to prevent further disasters in future.
Upon hearing the petitioner, a division bench of the High Court Division
issued a Rule Nisi to be returnable within two weeks, calling upon all the Respon-
dents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to take necessary
measures and legal actions.The Court further passed interim orders to produce the
investigation reports before the Court on legality of the construction of the building,
ownership of land and safety conditions of the buildings.
Apart from these, through other PILs e.g. BLAST and another vs. Bangladesh
and others 126 [Building Construction Code and Worker Safety Case]; Bangladesh
Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) vs. Bangladesh and others127 [Tannery case];
BELA v. Bangladesh and others128 [Ship Breaking to be Regulated by Law], BELA v.
Bangladesh and others129 (Prevention of the unlawful operation of Akij Bidi Factory);
Abdul Hamid and BELA v. Bangladesh and others130 (Polluting residential area by M/s.
Bonoful Bread factory); BELA v. Bangladesh and others131 (Pollution caused by a poly-
thene factory at Keranigonj); human rights organisations and the judiciary of
Bangladesh have been trying to ensure worker’s safety and security on workplaces.
113 Page
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF THOSE ACTS OF THE UK, THE USA AND

BANGLADESH
Previous discussions critically analyse the statutes of the UK, the USA and
Bangladesh. These Acts have some deficiencies as regard to protecting the health
and safety of workers and controlling the workplace casualties. These Acts have
substantive and procedural weaknesses as well for the proper prosecution of the
wrongdoers. It is found that the laws of the UK and the USA are far more advanced
than those of Bangladesh.
The BLA 2006 significantly covers the majority of the requirements of seven
internationally recognized general codes of conducts.132 However, the Act has
proved to be inefficient for the protection of workplace safety. It is also expressed
from this analysis that the system or laws themselves are reluctant to prosecute a
company and its directors for criminal liabilities. Therefore, a coordination of the
aforesaid statutes is essential so that each country can find out the best legal provi-
sions provided by those Acts and can include them to secure the highest level of
workplace safety by their own Acts.
The BLA 2006 needs to extend its area of application. Like the HSWA 1974,
the BLA 2006 should bring government department specially Railways, Telegraph
and Telephone Authority, Roads and Highways department, Public works and
Public Health Engineering departments under its area of jurisdiction.
Though s. 1(4)(j) of the BLA 2006 allows the injured workers or the depen-
dants of the deceased workers to sue those departments or companies and get
compensation, the BLA 2006 does not impose strict legally binding duties on those
authorities for health and safety of workers. Moreover, the Police force, local coun-
cils, educational institutions and non-profit organisations should come under the
BLA 2006 in terms of health and safety of their employees. The CMCHA 2007 has
already included those authorities or companies in case of any homicide.133 So
considering the relevant provisions of the HSWA 1974 and the CMCHA 2007, the
BLA 2006 needs to include those departments under its supervision.
The HSWA 1974 sets out duties of the employer that include training and
supervision of employees.134 The OSH Act 1970 authorises the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to conduct education to provide an adequate supply of quali-
fied personnel to carry out the purposes of this Act and informational programs on
the importance of and proper use of adequate safety and health equipment.135 In
addition to this, it says that the Secretary of Labour will establish and supervise
education and training programs both for the employers and employees and
114 Page
consult and advise interested parties for the prevention of unsafe or unhealthful
working conditions.136
On the other hand, the BLA 2006 does not compel an employer to provide
training, instruction or supervision of employees. The Act empowers the Govern-
ment to establish a National Council for Industrial Health and Safety to prepare
national policy for ensuring safety in workplaces and frame guidelines to imple-
ment them137 but there is no provision for training either for the employees or for
the employers. Training can reduce the number of deaths and injury in workplaces.
Thus, this training provisions of the HSWA 1974 and the OSH Act 1970 has to be
incorporated in the BLA 2006.
It is already studied that the HSWA 1974 penalises employers and self-em-
ployed persons for negligence in the course of their business that creates risk to the
health and safety of anyone who comes into contact with it. It also penalises occupi-
ers of ‘non-domestic premises’ who negligently create risk to health and safety of
those who come and work there138 and controllers of industrial premises who negli-
gently allow them to emit poisonous fumes.139
The area covered by the HSWA 1974 is considerably wider than that of the
BLA 2006. The HSWA 1974 can penalise a company and its management where a
stranger is killed or injured because of their lack of duty of care. The Act sets out
general duties of manufacturers for ensuring the quality of their equipments and
obliges those persons, companies or manufacturers whose faulty equipment causes
death or injury of any person.140 Therefore, the victim can claim his compensation
from a company that was not even known to him or her and the company is liable
to compensate that person.
It is an urgent need that the BLA 2006 includes such provisions which will
provide appropriate safety to workers. Moreover, those provisions will work as a
safety valve for the manufacturing companies and increase their cautiousness. The
BLA 2006 only applies as between the employer and employees/workers within the
same company. It does not give any remedy for a person who has been killed or
injured by the negligence of other companies. Therefore, Bangladesh law should
follow the HSWA 1974 for better safety and security of workers.
Success of the OSH Act 1970 largely depends on the activities of the Labour
unions. Unions may be the only institution in America that level the playing field
for workers in all aspects of their jobs.141 As members of a union, they are better
educated about their rights, have protection through collective bargaining agree-
ments and are better equipped to help OSHA enforce the OSH Act 1970. Therefore,
115 Page
the OSH Act 1970 emphasises active participation of the Labour unions.142 In
contrast, the HSWA 1974, the CHCMA 2007 and the BLA 2006, in spite of the provi-
sions of trade/labour unions, do not give emphasis on it as it is given by the OSH
Act 1970.
The level of compensation for the death or injury of workers in Bangladesh

is miserably scanty. The highest pecuniary penalty for workplace casualties (death
or grievous injury) is BDT. 100,000 which is equivalent to $ 1400. The maximum
term of imprisonment is 4 years.143 In other types of injury, the penalty and term of
imprisonment are very minimal.
The HSWA 1974 in most of the cases maximises the fine up to £20000 and
imposes imprisonment up to two years144 and the CMCHA 2007 sets out unlimited
fines for the companies for workplace death. Under the OSH Act 1970, if an
employer is convicted of a willful violation of a standard that has resulted in the
death of an employee, the offence is punishable by a court-imposed fine or by
imprisonment for up to six months, or both. A fine of up to $20,000 for an individual
may be imposed for a criminal conviction.145 In the light of the UK and the USA
provisions on penalties, Bangladesh must increase the amount of fine.
Despite the Labour Act 2006, the annual number of work-related deaths in
Bangladesh is not decreasing.146 Moreover, labour courts unfortunately fail to
complete the prosecution quickly and there are 40,000 cases pending in the labour
courts.147 One of the reasons for the backlog of cases is that the labour court has to
try different types of labour-related issues and declare its penalties or award about
30 types of offences.148
At the same time, the death toll and other workplace injuries in the USA as
an advanced industrialised country, is showing an unsatisfactory figure. It is
suggested that both the USA and Bangladesh lawmakers and jurists should consid-
er the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 of the UK and a
new law can also be enacted particularly for the prosecution of work-related deaths.
They should also study the weaknesses of the CMCHA 2007 and their solutions as
described in this article and can consider them if or when they start to enact this type
of law for the health and safety of the workers.
6. CONCLUSION
After reviewing major occupational safety and health laws of the UK, the
USA and Bangladesh, this research article has found that each law has some weak-
nesses of its own but the labour unions, employers and governments of the UK and
116 Page
the USA are very much aware of securing the workers’ rights more specifically to
their protection in workplaces. They have strong, neutral and effective trade unions
and many disputes are generally solved through negotiations between the employ-
er and the employee.
Bangladesh has been suffering from having poor trade union systems
which are mostly politically motivated. As a result, the employers are getting
advantages of it and trying to evade the legal obligations as imposed upon them by
the BLA 2006. Though in 2013, the BLA 2006 had been amended and thereby
provided more opportunities for forming trade unions but the government is yet to
put in place a set of regulations for enforcement. So, it is more important to form
effective and neutral trade unions with the assistance of Bangladesh government for
the protection of workers in Bangladesh.
For promoting decent workplace in Bangladesh, the International Labour

Organisation (ILO) took its first comprehensive, results-based programme under
Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) from 2006-2009. At the time of under-
taking the first DWCP 2006-09, key challenges to the decent work programme in
Bangladesh were identified as (i) low growth in wages; (ii) inadequate employment
opportunities; (ii) persistent gender inequality, and (iv) decent work gaps with
regard to child labour and trade union rights.149 All of these challenges are still very
real, in spite of the fact that Bangladesh has progressed in each of four outcomes of
DWCP. Under the second DWCP (2012-2015), ILO has identified four challenges:
(i) To promote new jobs, mostly for young people, who enter the labour force for
the first time
(ii) To turn low skilled jobs (ready-made garment sector, construction, etc.) and
survival strategy-based work (informal sector) to decent work opportunities,
(iii) To promote fundamental principles and rights at work which requires
improved respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights,
industrial relations and effective social dialogue, and
(iv) To improve working conditions, and eliminating discrimination at work-
place.150
It has also been found that the PIL cases, mostly filed by the different
Non-government Organisations, compel the owners of the factories to follow the
BLA 2006 or the BNBC to some extent but often they ignore the order of the courts
and it is almost impossible for the court to verify whether its orders are properly
complied or not. Moreover, many PIL cases on workers’ safety are still pending for
hearing.151
117 Page
Hence, workplace safety may not be possible without proper monitoring by

the government officials and prompt implementation of laws. Furthermore, a great
number of workers of Bangladesh are unaware of the safety rules. They need train-
ings, instructions and guidance from the employers that can reduce the number of
deaths and injuries significantly.
The Government should immediately establish a National Council for

Industrial Health and Safety to prepare national policy for ensuring safety in work-
places and frame guidelines to implement them. The provisions of the BLA 2006 are
miserably scanty to prosecute a company for violation of criminal liability. Only one
section of the Act (s. 312) tells about the offences done by companies. Therefore, it is
necessary to study the concerned statutes of the UK and the USA and examine how
we can incorporate the latest legal provisions in the BLA 2006 for the amelioration
of workers’ safety in Bangladesh.
Endnotes:
1. Ameena Chowdhury and Hanna Denecke,’ A comparative analysis between the

Bangladesh Labor Law 2006 and seven general codes of conduct’ (2007) Bangla-
desh - German Development Cooperation ,working paper no-06, Executive Sum-
mary and p.16.
2. †Mvjvg gZ©yRv I Aiæc ivq, ivbv cøvRv aŸs‡mi wZb gvm: nZvnZ kÖwgK‡ì 124 wkïi wkï Rxeb msk‡q, ˆ`wbK
cÖ_g Av‡jv (XvKv, 24 RyjvB 2013).
3. †gvqv‡¾g †nv‡mb bvbœ,y ÕGZ jvk ivL‡e †Kv_vqÕ ˆ`wbK hyMvšÍi (XvKv, 27 b‡f¤î 2012).
4. Health and Safety Executive, Workplace injury - all industries <http://ww-
w.hse.gov.uk/Statistics/causinj/index.htm.
5. US Bureau of Labor Studies, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary,
2014.
6. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, s 2(1).
7. ibid ss 2(2a), 2(2b), 2(2c), 2(2d) and 2(2e).
8. J.R. Spencer and Marie-Aimee Brajeux, ‘Criminal liability for negligence- a
lesson from across the Channel?’ (2010) 59(1) ICLQ 4.
9. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, s 4.
10. ibid s 5.
11. ibid s 6.
12. Brenda Barrett, ‘Liability for safety offences: Is the law still fatally flawed?’ (2008)
37(1) ILJ 100.
13. For more see the following discussion and the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, s 2
(49).
14. The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 , s 312.
15. Edwin Mujih, ‘Reform of the law on corporate killing: a toughening or softening
118 Page
of the law?’ (2008) 29(3) Comp. Law. 80.

16. ibid.
17. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, s 1(1).
18. ibid s 1(2).
19. Peter Ferguson, ‘Legislative Comments on Corporate Manslaughter and Corpo-
rate Homicide Act 2007’ (2007) 35 SLT 253.
21. ibid s 1(4) (c.)
22. Ministry of Justice , ‘A Guide to the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007’.
23. see more the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, ss 2-7.
24. ibid s 18.
25. ibid s 1(6).
26. ibid s 10.
27. Barrett (n 12) 106.
28. ibid.
29. The Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008, which came into force on 16 January
2009.
30. Table 11 of the Health and Safety Offences and Penalties Report 2004/2005.
31. [1999] 2All ER 249.
32. Clarkson C M V, ‘Corporate Manslaughter: Yet More Government Proposals’
[2005] Crim. L.R. 678.
33. Paul Almond, ‘An Inspector's-Eye View: The Prospective Enforcement of
Work-Related Fatality Cases.’ (2006) 46(5) Brit. J. Criminol. 896-897.
34. Edwin Mujih (n 15) 82.
35. [2006] EWCA Crim 1156.
36. [2006] EWCA Crim 1586; LTL July 6, 2006, Document No.AC0111412.
37. [2006] EWCA Crim 838; 2006 WL 1208979.
38. Davies v Health and Safety Executive [2002] EWCA Crim 2949; [2003] I.C.R. 586.
39. Frank B. Wright, ‘Criminal liability of directors and senior managers for deaths
at work’ (2007) Dec Crim L R 961.
40. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (formerly Railtrack Plc) (2004).
41. Almond (n 33) 894.
42. Peter Ferguson (n 19) 252.
43. Clarkson (n 32) 683.
44. ibid.
45. Coutino M., ‘How will Corporate Manslaughter Change?’(2005) 155(7192) NLJ
1344.
46. William Bebb, ‘Plus Ca Change?’ (2006) 68 Employment Law Journal 24.
47. Kyle v HM Advocate [1988] SLT 601 at p 604A.
48. Renton & Brown, Criminal Procedure ( Sir Gerald H. Gordon ed, 6th edn, W
119 Page
Green,1996) para 8-64.

49. Kyle v HM Advocate, [1988] SLT 601 ; Fraser v HM Advocate, 1994 SCCR 334 at
p 338E.
50. The particular criminal act charged against a person.
51. This phrase signifies that no one shall be twice tried for the same offence; that is,
that when a party accused has been once tried by a tribunal in the last resort, and
either convicted or acquitted, he shall not again be tried.
52. WF v Austria (2004) 38 EHRR 39 following Fischer v Austria (Application
37950/97).
53. Allan v HM Advocate, 1997 SCCR 21.
54. Fraser v HM Advocate, 1994 SCCR 334 at p 338F; Renton & Brown (n 124) para
8-65.
55. Transco plc v HM Advocate, 2004 JC 29; R v HTM Ltd [2006] EWCA Crim 1156;
R v Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Services Ltd [2006] EWCA Crim 1586; LTL July
6, 2006, Document No. AC0111412.
56. Almond (n 33) 911.
57. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings convicted of first corporate manslaughter
charge under new Act.
58. United States Department of Labor, Summary of the Major Laws of the Depart-
ment of Labor.
59. The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 Pub. L. 75-718, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, June 25,
1938, 29 U.S.C. ch.8.
60. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970 29 U.S.C. ch.15.
61. The Long shore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act 33 U.S.C. ch.18.
62. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 1990 Pub. L. 101-426, 4 Stat. 920. Oct.
15, 1990.
63. The Federal Employees' Compensation Act 5 U.S.C. ch. 81.
64. The Black Lung Benefits Act 1973 30 U.S.C. ch. 22.
65. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974 Pub. L. 93-406 , 29 U.S.C.
ch.18.
66. The Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1985 Pub. L. 99-272,
100 Stat.82.
67. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Pub. L. 104-191, 110
Stat. 1936.
68. The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act 1983 Pub. L.
97-470, 29 U.S.C. ch.20.
69. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act 1977 Pub. L. 95-164, 30 U.S.C. ch. 22.
70. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 1988 29 U.S.C. ch. 23.
71. United States Department of Labor, Summary of the Major Laws of the Depart-
ment of Labor.
72. The Occupational Safety and Hazard Act 1970, 29 U.S.C. 653.
120 Page
73. ibid s 1.
74. ibid s 6, 29 U.S.C. 655.
75. ibid s 3(5);29 U.S.C 652(5).
76. United States Department of Labor, Safety and Health Standards: Occupational
Safety and Health.
77. The Occupational Safety and Hazard Act of 1970, s. 5; 29 U.S.C. 654.
78. United States Department of Labor , OSH Act, OSHA Standards, Inspections,
Citations and Penalties.
79. The Occupational Safety and Hazard Act 1970, s. 8; 29 U.S.C. 657.
80. ibid s. 17 (a); 29 U.S.C. 666.
81. ibid s. 17 (b)(c); 29 U.S.C. 666.
82. ibid s. 17 (f); 29 U.S.C. 666.
83. Brooke E. Lierman, ‘To Assure Safe and Healthful Working Conditions’: Taking
Lessons from Labor Unions to Fulfill OSHA’s Promises’ (2010) 12 Loyola Journal
of Public Interest Law 1-2.
84. US Bureau of Labor Studies, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary,
2014 <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm> last accessed on
15.06.2015.
85. Number of fatal work injuries, 1992–2010 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
86. Workplace Injury and Illness Summary, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
87. Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970, s 9; 29 U.S.C. 658.
88. Steven Mufson, Oversight of Refineries is Lax, Report Says, WASH. POST, Mar.
21, 2007.
89. ibid.
90. ibid.
91. Don Lofgren, Dangerous Premises: An Insider’s View of OSHA Enforcement
ILR PUBLISHER (June 1989) 205.
92. Federal OSHA Complaint Handling Process, Occupational Safety And Health
Admin.
93. Lofgren, (n 91) 204-05.
94. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970, 29 U.S.C. 666.
95. David Weil, ‘Enforcing OSHA: The Role of Labor Unions’ 30 INDUS. REL. (1991)
20, 21 winter p 31.
96. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970, 29 U.S.C. 666.
97. David Weil (n 95) 32-33.
98. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970, 29 U.S.C. 660(a).
99. OSHA Field Inspection Reference Manual, s 8, Ch. 4, OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMIN.
100. ibid.
101. As this Act will not apply to a number of sectors. See s. 1(4) of the Bangladesh
Labour Act 2006 for more details.
121 Page
102. The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, ss 2(31), 2(41) and 2(61). To appreciate the full
range of premises, it is necessary to look at the definitions of ‘establishment’,
‘commercial establishment’ and ‘industrial establishment’ in those sections.
103. For more see the following discussion and the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, s
2 (49).
105. ibid s 61.
106. ibid s 62.
107. ibid s 63.
108. ibid ss 64-70.
109. ibid s 87.
110. ibid s 79.
111. ibid s 88.
112. Bangladesh National Building Code 2006, Part 2, Ch 2, s 2.6.3.
113. Information provided by Dr. Md. Hossain Ali, Team Leader, BNBC 2010 in a
round table conference arranged by the Daily Star on The Bangladesh National
Building Code: 2nd Edition.
114. Ameena Chowdhury and Hanna Denecke, (n 1).
115. The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, s 1(4).
116. ibid s 319.
117. Bikash Kumar Basak, ‘Factory inspectorate, inspectors and inspection’ The
Daily Star, Dhaka, 19 January 2008.
118. 4-day training for newly joined Labour Inspectors, Ministry of Labour and
Employment, People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
120. Ministry of Labour and Employment, People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
121. ibid 17-18.
122. Bangladesh National Building Code 2006, Part 2, Ch 2 ,s 2.1.
123. Writ Petition No. 15693 of 2012.
129. Writ Petition No. 6025/05.
132. Chowdhury and Denecke (n 1) Executive Summary.
134. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1970, s 2.
135. The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970, 29 USC s 670 (a) (1)(2).
122 Page
136. ibid s 670 (c) (1)(2).

137. The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, s 323.
138. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, s 4.
139. ibid s 5.
140. ibid s 6.
141. Delcostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters et al. 462 U.S. 151 (1983);
Abood et al.v Detroit Board of Education et al. 431 U.S. 209 (1977); Alexander v
Gardner-Denver Co. 415 U.S. 36 (1974).
142. Lierman (n 83) 2.
143. The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, ss 288, 290, 309 (a), 309 (b), 309 (c), 307, 308.
144. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, schedule 3A and the Health and
Safety (Offences) Act 2008.
145. The Occupational Safety and Hazard Act 1970, s. 17(f); 29 U.S.C. 666.
146. ‘2453 workers killed, 1841 critically injured in Bangladesh last year- OSHE
Survey Report-2010 (Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational Accident
Victims, 5 January 2011) <http://www.anroav.org/content/view/123/1/> last
accessed on 10 March 2014.
147. Govt to deal with labour law cases backlog’ The Financial Express (Dhaka, 9
April 2010).
148. The BLA 2006, Chapter 19,ss 283- 316 for details.
149. ILO Report, BANGLADESH, Decent Work Country Programme, 2012 – 2015,
(November 2012), p 7.
150. ibid.
151. BLAST and Another v Bangladesh and others (Writ Petition No. 1256 of 2006),
ASK,BLAST and other v Bangladesh and others (Writ Petition No. 1919 of 2006)
to name a few. See note 123-131 for more details.
References
Books
1. Michael Welham, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide: A Manag-

er’s Guide to Legal Compliance (2nd edn, Tottel Publishing 2007)
2. Gerald Forlin and Louise Smail (ed), Corporate Liability: Work related Deaths
and Criminal Responsibility (2nd edn, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 2010)
3. John Bowers & Simon Honeyball, Text Book on Labour Law (4th edn, Blackstone
Press Ltd 1996)
5. Nirmalendu Dhar, Labour and Industrial Laws of Bangladesh (ReMiSi Publish-
ers 2007)
123 Page
Articles
1. Solaiman, S.M., and Begum, Afroza. ‘Impunity of frequent corporate homicides

by recurrent fires at garment factories in Bangladesh: Bangladeshi Culpable
homicide with its equivants in the United Kingdom and Australia’ (2014) 35 The
Company Lawyer, Issue 10
2. Thomas Weigend, ‘Societas delinquere non potest? A German Perspective’
(2008) 6 JICJ 927-945
3. Von Wiss. Mit. And Anne Schneider, ‘Corporate liability for Manslaughter- A
Corporate between English and German Law’ zis 1/2009 Zeitschrift für Interna-
tionale Strafrechtsdogmatik – www.zis-online.com
4. J.R. Spencer and Marie-Aimee Brajeux, ‘Criminal Liability for negligence- a
lesson from across the Channel’ (2010) 59(1) ICLQ 1-24
5. Stephen Griffin, ‘Legislative comments on corporate killing-the Corporate Man-
slaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007’ (2009) 1 (Feb) LMCLQ 73-89
6. Andrew Clapham, ‘Corporate Criminal Liability: New Developments in Interna-
tional Criminal Law’ [2008] ICJ 65 (899)
7. Corporate Punishment’ (1981) 79 Michigan Law Review 386-409.
8. Frank B. Wright, ‘Criminal liability of directors and senior managers for deaths
at work’ (2007) Dec Crim L R 957
9. Eric Mongelard, ‘Corporate civil liability for violations of international humani-
tarian law’ (2006) 88 (863) International Review of the Red Cross
Online Articles
1. Kathleen F. Brickey, ‘Perspectives on corporate criminal liability’ (2012) Legal

Studies Research Paper Series, paper no. 12-01-02, p.2
< http://ssrn.com/abstract=1980346 >
2. Neha Mirajgaoker, ‘Corporate Criminal Liability - Doctrine of Identification’
(2011) January 06, LSI <http://legalservicesindia.com/article/article/corpo-
rate-criminal-liability-doctrine-of-identification-488-1.html>
3. ‘Investigations into Workplace Deaths in Bangladesh: Compensation, Account-
ability and Legal Reform’ (2009) Centre for Corporate Accountability, UK 13
<http://www.corporateaccountability.org/dl/Internation-
al/bang/reports/cca_banginvestigapr09.pdf>
Research Publications
1. Salma Chaudhuri Zohir and Pratima Paul Majumder, Garments Workers in

Bangladesh: Economic, Social and Health Condition (Bangladesh Institute of
Development Studies 1996)
124 Page
2. Labour Rights in the Readymade Garments Industry in Bangladesh-Perspective

2008 (Odhikar, Dhaka)
3. Decent Work and Bangladesh Labour Law: Provisions, Status and Future Direc-
tions (Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies, Dhaka, April 2010)
4. GW‡fv‡KU dwi`v Bqvmwgb, weKí we‡iva wblcwË: †cÖÿvcU evsjv‡`‡ki kÖg we‡iva (evsjv‡`‡k wjM¨vj GBW GÛ
mviwf‡mm Uªv÷-eøv÷, XvKv)
5. Neil Foster, Personal Civil Liability of Company Officers for workplace injuries
and death (Australian National University, Canberra, 6 February 2007)
6. kÖwgK‡ì Rb¨ AvBb mnvwqKv, (evsjv‡`‡k wjM¨vj GBW GÛ mviwf‡mm Uªv÷-eøv÷, XvKv)
7. M. Monjur Morshed, ‘A study on labour rights implementation in readymade
garment (RMG) industry in Bangladesh: Bridging the gap between theory and
practice.’ (University of Wollongong Thesis Collection, University of Wollon-
gong, NSW, Australia 2007)
125 Page

Protection of Workers in Workplaces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Protection of Workers in Workplaces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROTECTION OF WORKERS IN WORKPLACES: A COMPARATIVE

STUDY OF LABOUR LAWS OF THE UK, THE USA AND BANGLADESH

The safety and security of a worker in a workplace has become a global

* Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Green University of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh

2. LAWS OF THE UK FOR THE SAFETY OF WORKERS AT WORKPLACES

2.1 The health and safety at work etc. Act 1974

“Where an offence is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance

2.2 The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007

As per this Act, corporations can be companies limited by share or guaran-

The offence is concerned with the corporate liability of the organisation

An organisation convicted of the new offence can receive a fine.25 There is

2.3 Weaknesses of the HSWA 1974

2.4 The Limitations of the CMCHA 2007

It is evident that the Corporate Homicide and Corporate Manslaughter Act

Section 1 (1) of the CMCHA 2007 provides that corporate homicide is

It is evident that the offence of corporate killing represents an important

3. LAWS OF THE USA FOR THE SAFETY OF WORKERS AT WORKPLACE

The Department of Labor (DOL) of the United States of America adminis-

3.1 The Occupational Safety and Health Act 1970

Primarily, this article concentrates on the Occupational Safety and Health

The Act defines an employer as "any person engaged in a business affecting

To enforce its standards, under the Act, an OSHA compliance officer is

3.2 Lacunae of the OSH Act 1970

• Inadequate Numbers of OSHA Inspectors

OSHA enforces its standards primarily by conducting workplace inspec-

• Poor Enforcement of Occupational Safety and Health Standards

• Difficulty in Indentifying Hazards

• Unwillingness of Employees to Inform the OSHA

Even if an employee discovers that he is working with an unsafe chemical

• Absence of Higher Level of Penalty

• Abatement of Penalty Without Physical Verification of the Workplace

An employer may satisfy the abatement requirement by simply sending a

4. LAWS OF BANGLADESH FOR WORKPLACE SAFETY

4.1 The Bangladesh Labour Act 2006

4.1.1 Safety Provisions under the BLA 2006

The Act provides general obligation to the employers by stipulating that no

Table 1: The safety provisions under the BLA 2006

01 Precautions in case of fire s.62

Table 2: Special provisions relating to health, hygiene and safety

4.2 Bangladesh National Building Code 2006

The BNBC requires “the owner of the property” under construction to

Types of building construction have been broadly classified into two

4.3 Shortcomings of the BLA 2006

• Scope of Application Needs to Be Extended

• Inadequate Numbers of Inspectors and Lack of Training

Therefore, adequate numbers of inspectors should be appointed as per rule

• Necessity of Additional Labour Courts

• Effectiveness of The Labour Court

• Culpability for the Deaths and Adequacy of Law

• Obligations to ‘Employers’ Not to ‘Occupiers’

Instead of imposing obligations upon ‘occupiers’ of factories and their man-

• Provision Of Institutionalized Training and Issuance of Certificate on the Level

• Legal Reform Relating to Other Types of Works

4.4 Weaknesses of the Bangladesh National Building Code (The BNBC)

• No Agency for Enforcement:

At present, there is no agency empowered to enforce the Code. According

• Incorporation of Planning Aspects in the BNBC

Apparently existing BNBC provides insignificant consideration on environ-

4.5 Public Interest Litigations (PIL) on Workplace Safety in Bangladesh

To monitor the implementation of safety laws and regulations under the

On 26th November, 2012 the High Court Division of Bangladesh Supreme

In Sramik Nirapatta Forum and others v. Bangladesh and others125 (Collapse of

5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF THOSE ACTS OF THE UK, THE USA AND