BANK OF BARODA EMPLOYEES Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. The bank of Baroda Employees Union (in short referred to as `the Union') and three of its members, who are also employees of respondent no.1, have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 25.5.2000, issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, declining to make reference of the alleged industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. The reference under Sections 10 & 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short referred to as the Act) was declined to be made to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court by the Government of India, which was the appropriate Government, on the ground that the fixation/ re-fixation of pay of ex-servicemen employed by public sector banks was governed by the instructions issued by the Government and that the management had taken action as per the understanding arrived at between the Union and the Management before the Regional Commissioner (c) on 4.4.1996. The order of the Central Government dated 25.5.2000, is now challenged by the petitioners by filing the writ petition on the ground that the Union was never a party to the settlement dated 4.4.1996 on the basis of which appropriate Government declined to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. Paragraph 8 of the writ petition which is relevant for the purposes of this decision may be reproduced as under:-

(2.) The reason on the face of it seems to be strange. A mere understanding is not a settlement as per Industrial Disputes Act. The name of the union and the management is nowhere disclosed. This is not the plea taken by the respondent bank in its counter reply before the Conciliation Officer. Moreover, the impugned circular letter is dated. 7.1.93 and the alleged understanding having taken place on 4.4.96 has no bearing. Petitioner No.1 union was never a party to that settlement or understanding. It is also not disclosed as to which were those instructions of the Government under which impugned circular dated 7.1.93 was issued. Nothing was produced on record by the respondent bank during the conciliation proceedings. Therefore, the so called reasons mentioned in the impugned order/letter dated 25.5.2000 is absolutely contrary to record, extraneous and untenable. Reference has been refused just in order not to enable the petitioner union to seek appropriate adjudication. Therefore the order/letter dated. 25.5.2000 cannot sustain in law.'

(3.) The petitioner in the petition has thus taken as specific plea that the union was never a party to the settlement dated 4.4.1996. When the matter came up for hearing on 11.9.2000, it was observed by the Court that learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that there were no instructions issued by the Government as regards the fixation or re- fixation of the pay of ex-servicemen employed by the public sector banks nor there was any understanding arrived at between the Union and the Management before the Regional Labour Commissioner (c) on 4.4.1996, as stated in Annexure `P-3', i.e. the letter dated 25.5.2000, by which the appropriate Government had declined to make reference of the alleged industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. After making these observations, the Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the petition be not admitted.