CANARA BANK Vs. VASUDEVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Petitions are by the management of Canara Bank, Bangalore, praying for quashing the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No. 2, Bombay ('The Tribunal' for short) made on the applications presented by Respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('The Act' for short).

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : A settlement was arrived at on 19th October, 1966, between the management of the Canara Bank and their workmen represented by All India Bank Employees Federation over various issues. One of the clauses of the settlement was that a workman would be entitled to special allowance if he was requires to perform duties in respect of which special allowance was provided for. One of the duties in respect of which special allowance was permitted was for functioning as Special Assistants. According to the terms of the agreement, inter-alia the duties of Special Assistants were to pass independently cash, Clearing and Transfer Cheques, Vouchers etc., upto and including Rs. 5,000/- or any higher limit prescribed by the Bank in its own discretion. On 11th June, 1980, the Management after having discussion with the representatives of the Canara Bank Employees' Union, decided to raise the limit upto which a Special Assistant was required to pass cheques, drafts etc., to Rs. 15,000/-. The above decision was enumerated in Memo. No. 227/80 dated 14th June, 1980. It was also issued in the form of a Circular on 23rd December, 1980 (Annexure-G). After the above Circular was issued, the Canara Bank Workers' Union filed write Petition No. 4607 of 1981 challenging its validity before this Court. The Write Petition failed. Thereafter, an Industrial Dispute was raised as to the justification of raising the limit for passing cheques independently by special Assistants upto Rs. 15,000/-. The dispute was referred for industrial adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, by an order made by the Central Government dated 12th March, 1982. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 1 was posted as Special Assistant by orders dated 11th February, 1982 to Arundalpet, Vijayawade Branch in A.P. The special allowance payable at that point of time was Rs. 83/- per month. The first respondent refused to pass cheques and drafts above the limit of Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that the raising of the limit was unlawful. On 9th August, 1982, a memo was issued to the first Respondent that if he were to refuse to pass cheques and drafts upto Rs. 15,000/- he would not be entitled to the special allowance payable for performing the duties of Special Assistant. The first Respondent, however, refused to pass the cheques and drafts above the limit of Rs. 5,000/- Consequently the Petitioner stopped paying the special allowance to the first respondent. Similarly Respondent No. 1 in the second Write Petition who was posted as Special Assistant to Hubli Branch in this State also refused to pass cheques and drafts beyond the limit of Rs. 5,000/-. The Petitioner also stopped the payment of special allowance to her. There were also five other Special Assistants who had similarly refused to pass cheques and drafts beyond the limit of Rs. 5,000/-. All of them filed complaints under S. 33-A of the Act before the Tribunal complaining that during the pendency of the dispute the Petitioner had altered the conditions of service which was applicable to them immediately before the date of reference.

(3.) The Tribunal by its award dated 1st March, 1984 made on the reference, held that the petitioner-Management was justified in raising the limit for passing cheques independently by Special Assistants upto Rs. 15,000/- and it did not amount to any alteration of condition of service. However, by a subsequent award made on 27th March, 1984, on the complaints the Tribunal held that the petitioner had contravened S. 33(1)(a) of the Act, in respect of two of the seven complainants before it, who are Respondent No. 1 in each of the Petitions but in respect of five other complainants there was no such violation as they were members of the Union in consultation with whom the Management had raised the limit from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. Further, in respect of two persons who are Respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions, the Tribunal held that in view of the award made in the reference on 1st March, 1984, the Petitioner should pay arrears of special allowance form the date of stoppage till the end of February, l984. Aggrieved by this award, the Petitioner-Bank has presented this petition.