Scribd
Upload
10 views

C1

Uploaded by

durjoydd2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views

C1

Uploaded by

durjoydd2003
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

CASE 1

British American Tobacco Bangladesh Company Ltd. Vs. Begum


Shamsun Nahar 66 DLR (AD) (2014) 80
FACT : Begum Shamsun Nahar worked at British American Tobacco
Bangladesh as a Lady confidential typist . she was the sole permanent
female employee of the company. She was sexually harassed by two
colleagues (Azaz Dhamed Choudhury and Golam Farook Khan). The
employees of the British American Tobacco Bangladesh company harassed
her in the work place, and Begum Shamsun Nahar made written complaints
to the management of the Begum Shamsun Nahar company about The
sexual harassment and bullying. She complained to the Manager of the
Company, but no action was taken. Victim suffers from insomnia, depression,
nervousness, fear, feeling of powerlessness and other symptoms of
psychological harm which sometimes lead to a complete emotional
breakdown. It reducing her performance at job. Instead, she was fired. She
filed a lawsuit asking for damages. The company tried to dismiss her case,
but the courts said her claims needed to be investigated with evidence. The
Supreme Court agreed and allowed her case to continue.

Issue:

 Is British American Tobacco Bangladesh can be held vicariously liable


for the alleged sexual harassment ?
 Will dhe get his compensation?

Argument by appellants: The appellants argued that the plaint lacked a valid
cause of action, the company could not be held vicariously liable as the
alleged acts were personal and outside the scope of employment. The
company argue that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence, that the
company is not responsible for the employee's actions. They contended the
suit was legally barred and sought rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.

Argument by respondent : Begum Shamsun Nahar, argued that her plaint


disclosed a valid cause of action, as she was subjected to sexual harassment
and bullying by employees of the appellant company, and the company
failed to take action despite her complaints. She contended that the
company could be held vicariously liable for the employees' actions, as the
harassment occurred at the workplace and was related to her employment.
Begum Shamsun Nahar emphasized the need for evidence to fully address
the facts of the case in trial. She also highlighted the severe psychological
and physical harm caused by the harassment, justifying her claim for
damages.

Judgement : The Appellate Division, after hearing both parties and reviewing
the High Court Division's (HCD) judgment, observed that the plaintiff, Begum
Shamsun Nahar, was sexually harassed and approached the company
management, but instead of addressing the issue, she was terminated. The
plaint clearly alleges the company's failure to act on the harassment and
bullying. The Court stated that both the company's responsibility for the
harassment and the question of vicarious liability are factual matters that
require evidence.

The Court also found that the grounds for rejecting the plaint under Order VII,
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable, as none of the
rejection conditions applied. As a result, the Appellate Division dismissed the
petition for leave to appeal, ruling that there was no merit in the petition.

Reasoning:

A company can be held responsible for the actions of its employees, even if
the harassment occurred outside the scope of their employment, as long as
it happened in the course of their work. Employers must take reasonable
steps to prevent and address harassment, including implementing policies,
providing employee training, and setting up complaint mechanisms. Sexual
harassment is considered a civil wrong, and victims can seek damages for
the harm caused, including emotional, psychological, and financial damages.

My opinion :

vicarious liability : This concept makes one man liable for the acts of another
because of certain relationships.
The master is liable for the acts of the servant. That means British
American Tobacco Bangladesh Company also liable for their
employe . The manager took no steps against them. Since they
were committing crimes while working for the company, the
company also liable. she got sick because of them, so he was
fired from her job. If she can prove it happened to him. I think the
company should give him compensation for the this.

You might also like