CANARA BANK EMPLOYES UNION Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment in O.P. No. 693 of 2002 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants are the petitioners in the Original Petition.

(2.) The appellants are (i) the Canara Bank Employees Union and (ii) I.C. Mathai, a Deposit Collector engaged in the collection of New Nityanidhi Deposit for the Canara Bank. They filed the original petition challenging Ext. P5 order issued by the Bank. As per Ext. P5, the branch officers of the Bank were directed to put on notice all deposit collectors that on and from 28th March, 1997 the commission payable to them on the monthly collections would be as per Ext. P2 award. A specimen copy of the notice was also enclosed to Ext. P5 for ready reference. The grievance of the petitioners was that as per Ext. P5 order of the Bank, the rate of commission stood reduced to 2% from 3.5% which had been prescribed in Ext. P1 instructions issued by the Bank. The petitioners contended that they had already given notice of termination of Ext. P2 award and, therefore, the terms of Ext. P2 award were no more binding on the workmen. It was also contended that with the termination of Ext. P2 award, the pre-existing service conditions would resurrect. Both the contentions were rejected by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the above mentioned contentions of the petitioners run counter to the fundamental principles of industrial law. According to the learned Single Judge, even if a notice of termination of an award is given under Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the terms of the award will continue to bind the parties as terms of employment until they are modified by a fresh settlement or award. The issuance of notice of termination only enables the parties to raise fresh disputes for a fresh settlement or award. With notice of termination, the obsolete pre-award conditions are never resurrected. In taking the above view, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bahadur, AIR 1980 SC 2181. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the materials placed on record, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In our view, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that even if a notice of termination of an award is given under Section 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act") the terms of the award will continue to bind the parties as terms of employment until they are modified by a fresh settlement or award. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the issuance of the notice of termination enables the parties to raise fresh disputes for a fresh settlement or award. We agree with the view of the learned Single Judge that with notice of termination the terms and conditions of service which existed prior to the award will not revive or resurrect.