WORKMEN OF INDIAN BANK REP Vs. INDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Secretary General, Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union, representing the workmen of the Bank, has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the alleged directions as contained in a letter No. STAFF : IRC : KTV 84 dated August 21, 1984 (filed and marked as Exhibit 'a') and a consequential writ in the nature of mandamus not to unilaterally give effect to the notice dated November 2, 1982 issued under Section 9a of the Industrial Disputes Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE respondent is one of the Banks which were nationalised on July 19, 1969 by Central Act 5 of 1970. On August 18, 1973, the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank passed a resolution stating that the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Union and the constituent Unions be granted recognition and further (a) 2 office-bearers of the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Union be released from official work for Union work on all working days; (b) 2 office bearers of the Indian Bank Employees Union, Madras, on all working days for the Union work : and (c) one office-bearer each in the following six affiliate unions be released from 2 P. M. from Monday to Friday of each week viz. , Indian Bank Employees Union, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala Mysore, Bombay, New Delhi and West Bengal States. This according to the petitioner, was known as 'duty relief. On July 29, 1973, it is alleged, the Management signed a settlement with the petitioner Federation and the affiliate Unions and both parties agreed to abide by the Code of discipline, one of the conditions in the Code of Discipline was that both the Management and the Labour will not resort to any unilateral action and disputes settled at the appropriate level and that they would settle all future differences, disputes and grievances by mutual negotiations, conciliation and voluntary arbitration. The respective office-bearers of the Federation and the Units enjoyed the duty relief, as above until it is said, on September 24, 1976, the Management issued a letter to withdraw the duty relief with effect from October 1, 1976. The petitioner Federation protested against the same and when they did not get any reply from the Management filed W. P. No. 4438 of 1976 for quashing the order of the Management dated September 24, 1976. However, according to the petitioner, during the tendency of the said writ petition, the Management came to a settlement with the Federation and agreed to restore the duty relief. On the basis of the said understanding, it is alleged, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on December 14, 1977 and wrote a letter to the Management on January 2, 1978 requesting it to grant duty relief to the respective office-bearers of the Federation. The Management granted the same, vide their letter dated January 12, 1978. Suddenly, however, by its notice dated November 2, 1982, purported to be under Section 9a of the Industrial disputes Act, the respondent proposed to withdraw the duty relief with effect from December 1, 1982. The Federation and the Units, it is said in the petition, naturally got agitated' and issued a strike notice on November 21, 1982 proposing to go on strike from December 8, 1982 On November 30, 1982, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), the conciliation officer, issued notice to both parties, that is, the federation and the Management. Efforts of conciliation, however, failed and the Regional Labour commissioner submitted his failure report on March 28, 1983. The Government, vide its letter dated June 21, 1983, informed the petitioner as well as the respondent that the conciliation report had been received by it on May 31, 1983. According to the petitioner, although the Government was obliged to make a reference to the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Tribunal, but the Government decided not to refer the dispute for adjudication. Following the same, the Management has issued an order on August 21, 1984 and withdrew the duty relief. Hence, the instant petition.

(3.) MR. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon Section 9a to contend that any proceeding for the reconciliation and the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner to the Government and the Management's action under the impugned notice to withdraw the duty relief, is a change in the conditions of service of the workmen and since the above condition has emerged pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the workmen represented by the petitioner on the one hand, and the Management of the respondent of the other hand, the only way to resolve it for the Government was/is to refer the dispute for adjudication, as provided under Section 10 of the Act. According to Mr. Prasad, the respondent/bank being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution could not act arbitrarily and decide to withdraw a privilege extended to the office-bearers of the petitioner federation and the trade unions affiliated to it, without following the procedure prescribed in this behalf and without calling upon the petitioner to show cause and affording to it adequate opportunity of being heard. what has been, according to Mr. Prasad, achieved as a consequence of the collective bargaining as a service to the workmen, which is nothing but an extension of the obligations of the Management and thus a function, which the Management is duty bound to perform, should be respected by all concerned and the Management should not take a hostile approach, which shall, on the one hand cause injuries to the workmen's interests, and on the other hand, affect he interests of the Management as well. A scheme, which has been in vogue and which has benefited both the Management and the workmen and thus served an avowed public purpose, has been abolished for no good and valid reason.