STATE BANKS STAFF UNION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Trade Union, aggrieved by the orders dated 11-6-2009, Annexure-N and 16-6-2010; Annexure-P of the Ministry of Labour, Union of India, has presented this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER espoused the cause of Special Assistants in the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India, by filing a petition dated 4-7-2007, Annexure-M, alleging existence of an industrial dispute in the matter of entrustment of additional duties in branches where the position of Deputy Head Cashier (Special Assistants), is available, as recorded in the letter dated 24-4-2007, Annexure-G, more appropriately enabling the Cashier/Officer to delegate to the Special Assistants, work in excess of the duties of Special/Senior Assistants, as set out in the enclosure to the letter dated 5-8-2005, Annexure-F. According to the petitioner, the dispute was one of violation of Section 25-T and Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That petition was opposed by filing a reply statement of the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India, inter alia contending that there was no additional entrustment of duties and that the office order is issued to make working arrangement more in the nature of administration, and hence does not amount to an industrial dispute under Section 25-T and Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. The conciliation officer is said to have submitted a failure report, following which, the Ministry of Labour, by the correspondences Annexures-N and P impugned, held thus: Annexure-N: The Union has failed to establish violation of provisions of I.D. Act and bilateral understanding, hence, the dispute is premature at this stage. Annexure-P: The instructions issued by the management vide letters dated 18-4-2007 and 24-4-2007 relates to disposal of their day-to-day functions and as such, these are the policy and administrative matters of the management. Hence, the matter raised cannot be construed as an industrial dispute.

(3.) APPLYING the aforesaid well-settled principal of law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act, the Government performs administrative function and not judicial or quasi-judicial functions and therefore it cannot delve into the merits of the disputes and take upon itself the determination of the lis, in which event it would be in excess of jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 10 of the Act.