On May 1, as the world marks International Workers’ Day, the promise of justice for workers in Bangladesh deserves renewed attention. At the centre of that promise stand the country’s Labour Courts, specialised forums mandated to resolve employment disputes, enforce rights, and provide remedies for grievances. Yet, despite their critical role, these courts operate under structural constraints that limit their ability to deliver timely justice.
Bangladesh’s labour justice system is, at its core, a system under pressure. With only 13 Labour Courts across the country, the infrastructure is far from adequate for a nation with millions of workers and densely concentrated industrial zones. Three courts in Dhaka, two in Chattogram, and one each in Gazipur, Narayanganj, Cumilla, Khulna, Sylhet, Rangpur, and Barishal are expected to serve the entire workforce of the country, except those in the Export Processing Zones. It is important to note that nearly 500,000 workers in these zones fall under a separate legal regime, and their dispute resolution mechanisms are not the subject of this discussion.

The mismatch between industrial concentration and judicial capacity is striking. Industrial hubs such as Gazipur and Narayanganj carry disproportionately high caseloads, while some other regions experience comparatively lighter burdens. This uneven distribution of cases is one of the defining challenges of the current system. Data from the Labour Reform Commission underscore both the scale and concentration of the backlog. As of 2024, there were 21,617 pending cases across the 13 Labour Courts. A report published in Prothom Alo on 28 December 2024 indicated that 20,283 cases were pending across 13 Labour Courts and one Labour Appellate Tribunal. Of these, 8,515 were in Dhaka’s three Labour Courts, 6,077 in Gazipur, 2,118 in Narayanganj, and 1,934 in Chattogram, with smaller numbers in other regions such as Khulna, Cumilla, Rajshahi, Rangpur, Barishal, and Sylhet. This high concentration of cases in a few jurisdictions makes it virtually impossible for those courts to keep pace with new filings.

The Bangladesh Labour Act provides that cases should be disposed of within 60 days, extendable by an additional 90 days, making a total of 150 days. In practice, however, these timelines are rarely met. One key reason is that the law does not impose any meaningful consequence for exceeding the prescribed timeframe. As a result, delays become routine rather than exceptional. In many instances, case disposal occurs not through adjudication on the merits but due to the non-appearance of complainants, resulting in dismissal for default.

This imbalance should not be seen as a failure of individual courts or their chairpersons. Rather, it reflects a systemic constraint. Labour Court judges often face caseloads that far exceed reasonable limits. A single judge may dispose of around 250 to 300 cases per year under normal circumstances. However, in high-volume jurisdictions, the number of pending cases runs into the thousands. Under such conditions, adherence to statutory timelines becomes practically unattainable.

The law itself sets out an ambitious framework. The Bangladesh Labour Act provides that cases should be disposed of within 60 days, extendable by an additional 90 days, making a total of 150 days. In practice, however, these timelines are rarely met. One key reason is that the law does not impose any meaningful consequence for exceeding the prescribed timeframe. As a result, delays become routine rather than exceptional. In many instances, case disposal occurs not through adjudication on the merits but due to the non-appearance of complainants, resulting in dismissal for default.

Practical experience reflects these challenges. According to Mr Ruhul Amin, President of the Bangladesh Federation of Workers Solidarity, despite the statutory requirement for disposal within 150 days, in many courts the first date is scheduled more than three months after filing, often only to ensure service of notice to the opposing party. Thereafter, respondents are frequently granted extended time to file written statements, which in some cases may take several months, even up to a year. In such circumstances, the objective of speedy disposal remains largely on paper.

Several structural and procedural factors contribute to this situation. Frequent adjournments, manual case management systems, and limited use of technology slow down proceedings. The process of issuing notices itself can take months. Courtrooms also often lack sufficient administrative and technical support.
There are also human and practical barriers. Workers, particularly those with limited legal awareness, often face difficulties during deposition and examination. This can affect the outcome of cases and prolong litigation. These challenges, combined with the economic and logistical burden of attending repeated hearings, discourage sustained participation in legal proceedings.

This analysis is necessarily limited. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach. Piecemeal efforts are unlikely to produce meaningful results. A broader review of the labour justice system is needed, along with a set of practical reforms.

First, the number of Labour Courts should be increased in line with industrial growth and regional demand. Circuit courts in major industrial areas may also be considered to improve access and reduce case congestion. Increased investment in institutional capacity, including more judges, trained staff, and adequate financial resources, is essential for sustained improvement.

At the same time, statutory timelines should be made more effective through enforceable provisions. Revisiting the relevant sections of the Labour Act to ensure compliance with reasonable timelines would be an important step. Procedural reforms are equally important. The practice of granting repeated adjournments should be strictly regulated. Clear and limited timelines should be set for filing written statements and objections. Where there is no factual dispute, courts may consider deciding cases based on documents and legal submissions, without requiring lengthy depositions.

A legal framework, however well intended, is only as effective as the institutions that implement it. Strengthening the Labour Courts is therefore not just an administrative necessity; it is central to ensuring that the promise of justice for workers is both meaningful and achievable.

In parallel, the introduction of digital systems could significantly improve efficiency and transparency. Issuing notices through email, alongside traditional methods, enabling online case tracking, and providing digital access to orders and judgments would help reduce delays. A comprehensive process of digitalisation, supported by professional expertise, is essential. Priority should also be given to time-sensitive cases, particularly those involving wage disputes, which directly affect workers’ livelihoods. Cases involving interim injunctions should be closely monitored to prevent misuse.

Strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can also ease the burden on courts by encouraging negotiated settlements before formal litigation, provided that workers’ rights are fully protected. Efforts are already underway to promote such mechanisms. While alternative dispute resolution is necessary and can be useful in certain cases, the labour judiciary must be strengthened at the same time and should not be undermined in any way.

On this May Day, the discussion on workers’ rights must include access to justice. A legal framework, however well intended, is only as effective as the institutions that implement it. Strengthening the Labour Courts is therefore not just an administrative necessity; it is central to ensuring that the promise of justice for workers is both meaningful and achievable.

AKM Nasim is the Country Program Director of Solidarity Center-Bangladesh Office
& member of Labour Reform Commission 2024.

Khandaker Shafin Habib Shan is a Program Officer at Solidarity Center-Bangladesh Office.

Send your articles for Slow Reads to [email protected]. Check out our submission guidelines for details.