CANARA BANK NATIONALIZED BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 24.6.2004, passed by the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to be posted as Special Assistant with effect from 3.10.1989 and he should be given benefits of the post of Special Assistant with effect from 3.10.1989.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 was working as clerk with Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited. Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited got merged with the Canara Bank in August 1985 and respondent No.2 became employee of petitioner bank. Respondent No.2 was transferred to Madras branch on 23.12.1985. He made a representation against his transfer on the ground that his wife was working in Delhi and he had two children who were studying in Delhi. His request was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to work at Janpath branch. After two and a half years i.e on 7.5.1988 he was again transferred to Madras branch. He again made a request that he be retained in Delhi branch itself due to his family circumstances. Considering his request, though he was not transferred to Madras but he was transferred to Etah Branch, U.P on 1.11.1988. He joined Etah branch as an Accountant on promotion and after joining he made another representation dated 25.3.1989 to transfer him to Delhi. It is undisputed fact that transfer was a condition of the service and respondent No. 2 could be transferred to a branch of the bank any where in the country. Respondent No.2 also requested in his representation that in case he could not be posted at Delhi as an officer then he be reverted to the clerical cadre but posted at Delhi. He made various representations for his transfer from Etah to Delhi and considering his representations, management transferred him to Delhi by reverting him to clerical cadre on his giving undertaking that he shall not claim posting as Special Assistant for a period of three years from the effective date of his reversion. After his transfer from Etah to Delhi, he worked in the clerical cadre and was not given posting of Special Assistant which is a posting under clerical cadre. Later on he raised an industrial dispute claiming that he had a right to be posted as Special Assistant and to have special allowances of the Special Assistant, which was referred for adjudication to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, in the following terms:- "Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank, New Delhi in not posting Shri Gulshan Rai Mehta as Special Assistant and not paying him the special allowance attached to that post after his reversion from officer cadre w.e.f. 3.10.1989 is justified "If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to"

(3.) The Tribunal after noting the facts observed that the main grouse of the respondent No. 2 was that five officers namely Shri T.R. Manoharan, Shri G.N. Jhnndran, Shri V. Sundram, Shri S.K. Narayan Swamy and Shri T.R. Sharma, who got reverted to the clerical cadre in the similar circumstances, were posted as Special Assistant while this posting was denied to the petitioner. The contention of the management to this allegation was that the cases cited by the respondent No.2 were of prior to November 1988. After November 1988. the management had adopted a uniform policy according to which it imposed three conditions on the officers who preferred to forgo their promotion and sought reversion to the clerical cadre and posting at the place of their choice. One of such condition was that such an officer shall not be eligible for consideration for posting as Special Assistant for a period of three years from the effective date of reversion. An officer could be reverted to the clerical cadre and posted at the place of his choice only by giving his consent to the three conditions including the condition that he would not claim posting as Special Assistant. Respondent had also given an undertaking to this effect before his request for reversion and posting of his choice was accepted. This policy was adhered to uniformly and only one exception was made in respect of an officer Shri Narayan Swamy, who reverted on the ground of his son suffering from a decease 'Hemophilia' requiring consistent treatment and attention. The Tribunal, however, observed that the management adopted a policy of pick and choose and indulged in discrimination in the posting of clerks as Special Assistant before 1988 and even thereafter. The Tribunal, therefore, held that respondent was entitled to be posted as Special Assistant. The management had raised a contention of estopple against the workman on the basis of his undertaking. This contention was turned down by the Tribunal on the ground that such a condition was not imposed on Narayan Swamy.