TOBACCO BANGLADESH

COMPANY LTD.
VS
BEGUM SHAMSUN NAHAR
GROUP-B
 JAME AHMED- 18211010
 MD. FAHIM SHAHRIAR- 18211009
 TAHMINA YEASMIN TISHA- 18211017
 RAKIB AHMED- 18211014
 MD. TASNIMUL HASAN- 18211013
 SALEHIN TAREQ OME- 18211008
 KHONDOKER AL ANIM - 18211016
 SALMAN SAYED- 18211012
 FAHIMA HASAN- 18211011
 RUMANA HELALI AZAD LIMA- 18211002
 ALI MORTUZA ABIR- 18211044
…FACT
• THIS CASE DEVELOPED A COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE IN CASE OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE. IT IS A
MILESTONE DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT ENHANCES THE
LEGAL PROTECTION REGIME OF WORKING WOMEN AGAINST
HARASSMENTS IN BANGLADESH.
• THEREFORE, ALONG WITH CRIMINALIZATION SEXUAL HARASSMENT
IN WORKPLACE SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS A TORT.
• POINT OF THE CASE IS A WORKING WOMEN FACING
SEXUAL HARASSMENT FROM MR. EZAZ AHMED
CHOWDHURY AND MR. GOLAM FARUK KHAN.
BEGUM SHAMSUN NAHAR WAS WORKING UNDER
THE TOBACCO BANGLADESH COMPANY LTD.
...THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER APPEARED IN THE SUIT FILING AN
APPLICATION FOR REJECTION OF THE PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII,
RULE 11(A) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ARGUED THAT,
THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER WAS NOT PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR
ANY ALLEGED DAMAGES CAUSED TO THE PLAINTIFF IN FORM OF
HARASSMENT AND BULLYING IN WORKPLACE.
...AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT, THE SUIT IS NOT IN NATURE OF SUIT
AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 9 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908 AND THAT THE SUIT IS BARRED BY LAW. SO THE
PLAINTIFF HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION AND SO THE PLAINT IS LIABLE
TO BE REJECTED.
…ISSUE

WHETHER THE SUIT WILL REJECTED OR NOT ?

WHETHER THE COMPANY HAS VICARIOUS LIABILITY OR NOT ?
WHETHER THE LEAVE TO APPEAL WILL BE ALLOW OR NOT ?
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY LIABLE OR NOT ?
…REASON
REJECTION OF PLAINT_ THE PLAINT SHALL BE REJECTED IN THE FOLLOWING:
 WHERE THERE IS NOT DISCLOSE A CAUSE OF ACTION_ IF THE PLAINTIFF DOES
NOT DISCLOSE FACTS THAT GIVE THE PLAINTIFF RIGHT SEEK RELIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT THE FACT THAT ARE NECESSARY TO PROVE THE DAMAGE CAUSED
TO PLAINTIFF. CASE LAW ON THIS PROVISION _ S.M.P. SHIPPING SERVICES PVT.
LTD. VS WORLD TANKER CARRIER CORPORATION.
 WHERE THE RELIEF CLAIMED IS UNDERVALUED, AND THE PLAINTIFF ON
BEING REQUIRED, ON BEING REQUIRED BY THE COURT TO CORRECT THE
VALUATION WITHIN A TIME TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT FAILS TO DO SO.
 WHERE THE RELIEF CLAIMED IS PROPERLY VALUED, BUT THE PLAINT IS
RETURNED UPON PAPER INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED AND THE PLAINTIFF ON
BEING REQUIRED BY THE COURT TO SUPPLY THE REQUISITE STAMP PAPER
WITHIN A TIME TO BE FIXED BY THE COURT, FAILS TO DO SO IF THE PLAINTIFF
IS INSUFFICIENT STAMP UNDER COURT FEES ACT AND THE PLAINTIFF FAIL TO
SUPPLY THE PLAINT WITH CORRECT STAMP VALUE.
 WHERE THE SUIT APPEARS FROM THE STATEMENT IN PLAINT TO BE BARRED BY
ANY LAW. EXAMPLE: WHEN THE PLAINT FILLED LOOKS LIKE TO BE BARRED BY
ANY STATUE AND GIVES NO RIGHT TO PLAINTIFF TO FILE. THE SUIT AND
LIABLE TO REJECTED IF THE COURT ACCEPTS THE PLAINT IS BARRED BY LAW.
…ARGUMENTS
• THE LEARNED ADVOCATE OF THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT THE
HIGH COURT DIVISION ERRED IN LAW IN APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF VICARIOUS
LIABILITY WHICH CANNOT BE APPLIED IN DECIDING THE CAUSE OF ACTION OF
THE INSTANT SUIT IN ABSENCE OF RELATIONSHIP OF MASTER AND SERVANT AND
THE OFFENCE HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT.
• THEN THEY CONTENDED THAT THE HCD COMMITTED ERROR OF LAW
OCCASIONING FAILURE OF JUSTICE IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE DEFENDANT-
PETITIONER WILL BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THOSE ACTS COMMITTED BY ITS
EMPLOYEES ONLY IF IT HAD AUTHORIZED THEM TO DO FOR CARRYING OF
BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY.
• AND THOSE OFFENCE IS IN NO WAY RELATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF
THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER AND SO IT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR
THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
• THEY ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO CAUSE OF ACTION CAN LIE AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT-PETITIONER EVEN VICARIOUSLY
• SINCE AFTER TERMINATION, THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT HAVING
ACCEPTED ALL DUES AND BENEFITS FROM THE DEFENDANT-
PETITIONER COMPANY OR AGAINST SUCH TERMINATION WITHOUT ANY
PROTEST PRECLUDES THE RIGHT OF ANY ADDITIONAL CLAIM AT ANY
STAGE.
…JUDGEMENT
• A PERSON CAN BE LIABLE FOR TORT AS WELL AS DAMAGES MAY BE
CLAIMED AGAINST HIM FOR SUCH WRONG DOING AS WELL AS
ORGANIZATION OR ESTABLISHMENT IF IT FAILS TO ENSURE THE
PREVENTION OF SUCH HARASSMENT TO A WOMEN
• WHERE SHE CAN WORK HONOUR AND DIGNITY AND WITHOUT
BEING HARASSED OR DISTURBED BY HER MALE BOSS OR OTHER
MALE COLLEAGUES.
• IN THE CASE TOBACCO BANGLADESH COMPANY LTD. VS BEGUM
SHAMSUN NAHAR, SHE WAS SEXUALLY HARASSED AND ATTEMPT
TO APPROACH.
• THIS COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND QUESTION OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY. AGAIN
THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT RAISED BY THE
PETITIONER. HENCE, THE LEAVE PETITION IS DISMISSED.
GROUP OBSERVATIONS