BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. RAJARSHI SHAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The short question that arises in this appeal is as to whether the appellant - Registered Trade Union - had locus to prefer an application to modify a standing order that applies to the employees of the respondent under Sec. 38(2) of The Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The brief facts necessary in order to dispose of this appeal are as follows :-

(3.) By two Agreements dtd. 11/1/2004 and 21/2/2010 which were settlements under Sec. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act entered into between the respondent and its employees, it was agreed vide Clause 16 of the 2004 settlement and Clause 15 of the 2010 settlement that the retirement age would now be 58 years. A reference was made under Sec. 73A of The Bombay Industrial Relations Act (as it was then styled) to the Industrial Court, which then made an award in terms of the two settlements entered into. This award was dtd. 10/3/2010. However, when it was pointed out that formalities under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act in modifying the standing order 22(7) needed to be gone through in order to implement the two settlements which culminated in an award, the appellant - Registered Union - filed an application on behalf of the employees dtd. 26/4/2011 under Sec. 38(2) of the said Act. Armed with the consent letter from various other unions dtd. 4/9/2012, the application was heard by the Additional Labour Commissioner. The Additional Labour Commissioner, vide his order dtd. 25/10/2012, recorded as follows :-