CO Vs. YESHWANT SAHAKARI BANK LTD. & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution, what falls for my consideration is the interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 42(1) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'BIR Act'). The point in question is whether there is any warrant to construe in Sec. 42(1) of the BIR Act that notice is required to be given for affecting the change or in cases where the change pertains to the matter concerning Item 2 of Schedule 11 of the BIR Act and is of a character which adversely affects the employees of the concerned employer that notice is necessary.

(2.) The petitioner-union is a representative and approved union for the Banking Industry for the local area of Greater Bombay under the provisions of the BIR Act. The first respondent Bank, Yeshwant Sahakari Bank Limited, recruited the fourth respondent, L.S. Phadlare, from March 1. 1982 as sub-Accountant. The Bank did so without giving any notice in that behalf to the Union. The petitioner-union, therefore, objected to the recruitment of the said Phadtare on the ground that due to his recruitment there is an increase in the number of posts in the Bank and as such the notice of change was necessary and since the said change was effected without giving them a notice and without following the proper procedure laid down in the BIR Act, it was illegal. The petitioner accordingly by a letter dated April 12, 1982 brought the said illegal change to the notice of the Bank and asked them to withdraw the illegal change but with no result. Therefore, the union filed Application (LCB) No.162 of 1982 in the Labour Court at Bombay under Sections 78 and 79 of the BIR Act and prayed that the Bank be directed to withdraw the said illegal change.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the Bank that the said Phadtare was appointed as sub-Account ant to cope up with the work in the Bank on probation for six months in pursuance of the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors. It was the case of the Bank that the accounts work was being attended to by one Dhumal who had resigned and, therefore, it was necessary to appoint a competent person to look after the accounts work. Thus, according to the Bank, there was no increase in the number of persons employed by the Bank nor creation of new post and as such there was no necessity for the Bank to give a notice to the petitioner under Sec. 42(l) of the BIR Act.