The bill was passed in parliament at a time when the industrial belts in the capital and its suburbs were witnessing violent labour unrests for wage hike.

The 'anti-labour' provisions and numerous 'incongruities' of the law, passed hurriedly in parliament, will give rise to further unrest, said top leaders of labour fronts.

On May 23, one person was killed, at least 100 people were injured, over 250 factories and 200 vehicles were ransacked as garment workers in tens of thousands rampaged through the city and its suburbs to press home their 11-point demand.

Ever since, violent labour agitation has been a recurrent phenomenon. Dozens of factories were vandalised in the last few months.

"Various provisions of the law will invite further anarchism among the labourers," feared Dr Wazedul Islam Khan, coordinator of Sramik Karmachari Oikya Parishad (Skop), the apex body of labour unions.

"We have launched a series of agitation across the country against the new law which restricts workers' rights," said Khan.

"We urge the government to bring necessary amendments to the law soon," he said. "The labour bill is likely to spark fresh agitation in the industrial sectors as labour leaders found it as a move to limit basic labour rights."

President of Sammilita Garments Sramik Federation Nazma Akhter said the ongoing capital-centric labour unrest will continue if the employers keep on exploiting the workers in connivance with the government.

The new law has a number of gross inconsistencies implying vagueness of labour interests and easy exemption of the owners in a conflict situation, said advocate Zafrul Hasan Sharif, an expert and labour rights activist.

"The law keeps the Labour Court with no authority to get its verdict executed," he said. "The whole trick of depriving and repressing the workmen lies in making the labour court virtually a toothless institution in implementing the law."

The labour court, as per the new law, can only determine and declare fine of the offenders and due wages of the workmen but cannot ensure them, he said.

Section 133 of the law provides that any due wages of a workman declared by a labour court shall be recoverable as a Public Demand Recovery (PDR) at a district level civil court. It implies a perennial legal fight for a poor workman year after year to get his due wages. On the other hand, any compensation unpaid by the factory owners, will be exactable in the manner land revenue is collected.

"So, the question remains unanswered as to who is going to recover the PDR and land revenue for a workman," said advocate Sharif.

If an aggrieved labourer has to go to a certificate court to recover his compensation and due wages, the labour court remains as a quasi court, said Dr Shahdeen Malik, a lawyer of the High Court.

Turning personal demand as a public demand is not only unusual but also unheard of.

The PDR is not applicable to a private business entity, he said.

A fundamental flaw of the act is that the labour court is not empowered to realise compensation and wages and execute penalty, said Barrister Tanjib-ul Alam. "Another major flaw is that the court has no specifically laid down execution procedure."

The law appears to be aimed at benefits of the employers, who constitute the powerful quarters, he said. "Voice of the labour force has not been heard in the law."

Kalpana Akhtar of Bangladesh Centre for Workers' Solidarity said, "With the labour court ineffective in enforcing its judgments, the law will remain useless in the perspective of the workmen's rights."

The chairman (judge) of a labour court can only issue a warrant of arrest but cannot order the police to execute the warrant, she said.

The law has been passed hurriedly keeping the labour fronts in the darkness. It limits the employees from taking part in trade union activities as it provides that there can be only one labour union in an entire industrial area, she added.

The government earlier agreed that it would take the opinions of the Skop into consideration in the process of making the law but it framed the law bypassing Skop, said Wazedul Islam Khan.

The Skop had identified as many as 252 inconsistencies and flaws in the draft labour law of 1994 and proposed amendments.

"But the government apparently took a position that it would not object to a correction demanded by labour representatives provided owners do not oppose it," said Zafrul Hasan, general secretary of Jatiyatabadi Sramik Dal and joint secretary of Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies (BILS) and a government-nominated labour representative.

"As a result, it became impossible on the part of the labour leaders to establish many of their demands when the government and owners turned one party in the bargain," he said.

One of the fundamental aims of framing the labour law afresh annulling 27 old ones was to have a modern law. But unfortunately, it has been another outdated law flawed with absence of adequate instruments to ensure welfare of the labourers, said legal experts.

Section 283 of the new law provides for three months' jail or a fine of Tk 5,000 or both for unjustly lay-off, discharging, dismissing or removing a workman from the job.

Reducing imprisonment in the new law to three months from six months in the previous law is a trick to keep the owners on the safe side in the event of doing injustice to workmen, said advocate Zafrul Hasan Sharif.

The provision for alternative punishment, a fine of Tk 5,000 in place of imprisonment of various terms in different sections of the law, makes the punishment provision trickily weak keeping scope for exemption of the offenders.

A workman will not be entitled to any compensation in the event of on-the-job death if three years of service is not completed.

"There are lot of flaws and anomalies in the new labour law," said a top official of the labour ministry, who was involved in framing the law, on condition of anonymity.

Asked about inconsistencies in the law, Secretary in charge of the Ministry of Labour and Employment Syed Sujauddin Ahmed said, "I cannot respond. Submit the queries in writing and I will look into them and consult with my colleagues to make response."

Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Md Alauddin Sardar said, "Inconsistencies in a law are supposed to be corrected in the process of vetting, but it is difficult to examine all the flaws in details because of excessive load of work."

Despite repeated attempts, State minister for Labour and Employment Amanullah Aman could not be contacted for his comments.