Grameenphone Faces Fresh Criticism Over Delayed 5% Profit Share Payments to Workers
A tripartite meeting was held on December 17 between Grameenphone management and a committee of the Ministry of Labour and Employment to discuss the long-pending payment of delayed penalties related to workers’ 5 percent profit share. The meeting was chaired by Additional Secretary Fahmida Akhter, while Senior Director Md. Awlad Hossain represented Grameenphone.
On December 23, Tuesday, the meeting minutes were circulated among all parties, including the adviser and the secretary’s private secretary. However, after reviewing the minutes, the aggrieved workers expressed renewed frustration, alleging that Grameenphone Limited is once again attempting to delay and evade responsibility by citing the issue as “sub judice.”
According to the meeting minutes obtained by DigiBanglaTech.news, Grameenphone claimed that the 2010–2012 Workers’ Profit Participation Fund (WPPF) issue had already been settled, arguing that employees voluntarily waived their claim to interest by signing a Deed of Undertaking at the time.
The Grameenphone 5 Percent Delayed Dues Recovery Council has rejected this claim, calling it legally and morally questionable. Council President Abu Sadat stated that the so-called consent was extracted while the principal amount was withheld and under conditions of extreme power imbalance, making it unacceptable as free consent.
He further explained that under labour law, 5 percent of a company’s annual profit must be distributed among workers in the following year, and failure to do so automatically incurs delay interest. Grameenphone, he said, failed to make timely payments for 2010, 2011, and 2012, rendering the imposed penalties lawful and justified.
Affected workers claim that Grameenphone filed a writ petition in 2011 challenging the government’s 2010 SRO, thereby delaying payment. Anticipating defeat, the company proposed waiving interest in 2014 and ultimately withdrew the writ in 2023. Observers argue this withdrawal confirms the legality of the government order and the illegality of the delayed payments.
Currently, around 1,200 cases related to the issue are pending in labour courts, while an additional 2,800 workers are awaiting their dues without filing cases. In such circumstances, critics say, invoking the sub judice argument is unreasonable.
Investigations reveal that Grameenphone has previously resolved several disputes—including those involving NBR, BTRC, and former employees—through negotiations outside court. Recently, the operator also sought a settlement with BTRC over audit objections to resolve long-running legal complications. Observers therefore question why the company is relying on court proceedings only in the case of workers’ dues.
During the recent meeting, labour officials also asked Grameenphone to submit supporting documents detailing benefits provided to employees who opted for VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme), though no deadline was set. Workers allege that such requests are irrelevant to the core issue and are being used to further delay resolution.
Former Grameenphone employee and labour rights activist Adiba Jarin said no court has waived the delay penalties or interest, and that court directives at the time of writ disposal explicitly required payment of such penalties—meaning the legal obligation still stands. She accused the company of showing nominal respect for the law while practically denying workers their rights through delay and procedural excuses.
She also noted that, following directives from the labour adviser, a renewed tripartite dialogue began earlier this year. Despite workers submitting all necessary documents in meetings held on November 3, Grameenphone has continued its delaying tactics, she alleged.
Beyond labour disputes, Grameenphone is also facing scrutiny over alleged anti-competitive practices. Rival operators Robi and Banglalink have lodged complaints with the Bangladesh Competition Commission, accusing the company of market dominance abuse and discriminatory pricing. However, investigations have stalled after Grameenphone secured a High Court stay order challenging the commission’s jurisdiction.
A High Court bench comprising Justice Faiz Ahmed and Justice Md. Manjur Alam recently ordered the suspension of all investigation activities against Grameenphone until further notice.
Observers point out an apparent contradiction: while Grameenphone is contesting worker claims and competition probes in court, it formally proposed arbitration last November to settle BDT 12,579 crore in outstanding dues claimed by BTRC based on unpaid fees, revenue share, and interest. This dual approach, critics say, reflects inconsistency in the company’s stance toward legal accountability.
DBTech/IH/OR
