After keeping a legal battle alive for more than a decade, Grameenphone (GP) voluntarily withdrew its writ petition in 2023 – a move former employees describe as a tactic to delay payment of interest that had accumulated on delayed Workers’ Profit Participation Fund (WPPF) payments.
The withdrawal allowed more than 1,000 former employees to file cases with Labour Courts, seeking statutory interest.
Now, facing those claims, GP has returned to the High Court with a fresh writ petition seeking to remove the very legal provision that could determine the size of its liability.
Filed 5 July 2026, the petition challenges the labour law clause requiring companies to pay interest on unpaid WPPF liabilities at 75 per cent of the dividend rate paid to general shareholders every year.
Grameenphone, the country’s largest mobile operator, has sought the court to apply the lower alternative under the law — 250 basis points above the bank rate.
If the company wins, the interest burden claimed by former employees could be reduced significantly.
Former employees allege that GP first used litigation to keep their claims away from Labour Courts and later returned to challenge the interest formula after workers began pursuing their dues in the Labour Courts.
Grameenphone claims its original writ became irrelevant after an employee settlement and that the latest petition seeks legal clarity.
The company says there is no dispute over WPPF obligations after 2013, when the law was amended to explicitly include mobile operators.
The dispute dates back to 2011, when GP challenged a government order requiring telecom operators to contribute 5 per cent of annual profits to the WPPF.
The company obtained a stay order from the High Court, leaving the applicability of the profit-sharing requirement to telecom operators unresolved.
In 2013, the government amended the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 to include mobile telecom operators among sectors required to contribute to the WPPF and expanded the list of beneficiaries.
In respond to TIMES of Bangladesh queries over the issue, GP said it has complied with WPPF obligations since the amendment and established a WPPF Board of Trustees.
The current dispute is about the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 when the company halted WPPF payments due to a stay order.
Under the Labour Act, if a company uses money belonging to the WPPF, it must pay interest at either 250 basis points above the bank rate or 75 per cent of the dividend rate paid to general shareholders, whichever is higher.
Former employees argue that Grameenphone withheld their WPPF payments for years and the higher dividend-linked formula should apply.
The company argues that applying the dividend-based formula retrospectively would create an excessive liability when most eligible employees had already settled the matter through agreements.
While the original writ was pending, GP, with court permission, distributed the principal WPPF amount to more than 4,300 employees.
It claimed most eligible employees later signed deeds of undertaking after a settlement process involving the Grameenphone People’s Council (GPPC), the employee representative body, agreeing not to pursue further claims for interest.
Former employees reject that interpretation, saying the agreements only covered receipt of the principal amount and did not waive their legal right to interest arising from years of delayed payment.
They also question why Grameenphone continued the writ until 2023 if the dispute amounts had already been settled by 2015.
The telecom operator says the withdrawal was made after the settlement became effective and that procedural issues kept the case pending.
Claims reach unprecedented scale
The dispute has produced the largest potential claims against a private company in Bangladesh.
The Grameenphone 5 Per Cent Delay Arrear Recovery Unity Council, representing the former employees, claims that each of around 4,000 former employees could be entitled to more than Tk33,000 crore, using the dividend-linked formulae.
The council estimates the combined claim at around Tk13.20 crore crore.
Even after giving up 99 per cent of the claim, the remaining amount would still stand at nearly Tk53,000 crore, said Adeeba Zerin Chowdhury, communications secretary of the council.
Grameenphone rejected the calculation.
Former employees allege legal tactics
Former employees say the latest legal challenge reflects a broader pattern of prolonged litigation that has prevented workers from receiving remedies.
Adeeba told TIMES that Grameenphone’s labour disputes show what she described as a “systemic pattern” where repeated litigation and prolonged legal proceedings have delayed workers’ access to justice.
She alleged that instead of resolving disputes through dialogue, the company allowed long-running issues to remain unresolved.
Grameenphone rejected allegations that it used litigation to delay payments, saying it respects the judicial process and will comply with the final court decision.
Employee-shareholder becomes petitioner
Former employees also questioned Grameenphone’s decision to name Mohd Aulad Hossain, the company’s head of industrial relations and a public shareholder, as the first petitioner in the new writ.
The petition identifies Hossain as a bona fide shareholder holding 12,643 Grameenphone shares since 2009. Grameenphone is the second petitioner.
They questioned why an employee-shareholder would challenge a legal provision that could determine benefits payable to workers, including potentially himself.
They argued that the value of his shareholding is negligible compared with the possible interest entitlement under the statutory formula.
Grameenphone told TIMES that Hossain joined the petition only in his capacity as a shareholder and that his employment position has no relevance to the legal challenge.
The High Court has yet to decide on the petition.
A ruling in favour of Grameenphone could sharply reduce the potential liability by limiting the applicable interest calculation.
A ruling against the company could allow former employees’ claims worth 21 times Bangladesh’s GDP to proceed under the higher dividend-based formula.
