INDIAN BANK LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ against the respondent 1. The circumstances which grave rise to the petition are the following.

(2.) THE petitioner is the Indian Bank, Ltd. , Madras. The respondent 1 is the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. The respondent 2 is the president, Indian Bank Employees' Union, and the respondent 3 is the secretary-general, Federation of the Indian Bank Employees' Union. By an order of the Government of India, dated 18 February 1960, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, a dispute was referred to the respondent 1-tribunal for adjudication. The matter in dispute was the "quantum of bonus payable to the workmen of the petitioner-bank for the year 1957. " Subsequently, the Government of India constituted a national tribunal, and on 22 September 1960 referred to it, for adjudication the following: Bonus--Principles and conditions under which payable, qualification for eligibility and method of computation after making provision for all matters for which provision is necessary by or under any of the Acts applicable to the banks or which are usually provided for by banks. The details of the reference as given above are found in Schedule II of the Government of India's notification, dated 22 September 1960. In Schedule I, is given a list of banking companies between whom and their workmen, the dispute specified in Schedule II, existed or was apprehended at the time notification was issued. Schedule I gives the names of 73 banks, and the petitioner, the Indian Bank, is item 32 in it. When the matter came up before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras (Sri K. Ramaswami Gounder), a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner herein, viz. , the management of the Indian Bank, that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication, and that the reference for adjudication to the tribunal, should be deemed to have been quashed by reason of Clause (6) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. This preliminary objection was considered at length by the tribunal, and by an order passed on 22 December 1960, the tribunal overruled the preliminary objection, and directed farther enquiry to proceed on the reference for adjudication. Aggrieved against the above order, the petitioner has filed the present petition applying for the issue of a writ to the industrial tribunal for "prohibiting the respondent 1 from proceeding with the enquiry and to pass such further or other order or orders as might be deemed fit. "

(3.) SECTION 10, Clause (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act on which the petitioner relied, for his relief runs: Where any reference has been made under Sub-section (1a) to a national tribunal, then, notwithstanding anything contained In this Act, no labour court or tribunal shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter which is under adjudication before the national tribunal, and accordingly, (a) If the matter under adjudication before the national tribunal is pending in a proceeding before a labour court or the tribunal, the proceeding before the labour court or the tribunal, as the case may be, in so far as it relates to such matter, shall be deemed to have been quashed on such reference to the national tribunal; (b) it shall not be lawful for the appropriate Government to refer the matter under adjudication before the national tribunal to any labour court or tribunal for adjudication during the pendency of the proceedings in relation to such matter before the national tribunal. The petitioner, contended that the matter referred to the national tribunal by the Central Government, was without any doubt whatsoever, a fundamental and integral part of the reference pending before the respondent 1, and that there could be no decision on payment of bonus without first settling or determining the principles or formula regarding the payment of bonus in banks. This point has been conceded by the industrial tribunal in its order above mentioned. Therefore, what the respondent 1 was called upon to decide would encroach on what the national tribunal was required to decide. The tribunal was clearly in error in claiming jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry, when necessarily and unavoidably it has to decide the same question which is pending as a question common to all banks, on a nationwide level, before the national tribunal. Section 10 (6) has been enacted just for the purpose of avoiding such conflicts. Strength was sought to be obtained for this contention by referring to an earlier occasion when consequent on a particular decision of the respondent 1, arising in the course of the same proceedings, the tribunal held that it had a right to call upon the petitioner-bank to disclose information about its secret reserves. Aggrieved against that order, the management took up the matter in W. P. No. 362 of 1960. This came up before Ramachandra Ayyar, J. , who allowed the petition and quashed the direction of the tribunal, making the observation: ?before there could be an order for inspection it had first to be ascertained whether the Full Bench formula would apply to the case of the banking company, and if the formula is held not applicable to it, whether (in) working any formula evolved for it, it would be necessary to know the amount Bet apart or provision made (for secret reserves ). It was pointed out that this observation of the learned Judge, would show the importance of laying down general principles for the calculation of bonus, as a pre-requisite to the adjudication under reference before the respondent 1, and that these selfsame general principles were also now before the national tribunal for adjudication.