RESERVE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION NAGPUR Vs. A P AIYER MANAGER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 17th May, 1982, the first respondent - the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur, passed an order withdrawing recognition granted to the petitioner - a registered Trade Union and an affiliated Association of the All India Reserve Bank Employee's Association. In this Rule, the said order is challenged as being unfair and in violation of principles of natural justice. The merit of the challenge has to be judged against the following backdrop of factual events.

(2.) The petitioner was recognized as an Association, firstly, in January 1957 and was representing Class III employees. In the year 1963, two different factions claimed majority of membership. Consequently, recognition granted to the petitioner was withheld. But by settlement dated 7th October, 1970, it was resorted and since then the petitioner has been representing the employees as their bargaining agent. By an award of the National Tribunal dated 4th December, 1981, the workload upon the Class III employees of Notes Examination and Verification Department was increased. There was an agitation against the said increase of workload. A deputation of the employees requested the management for not implementing the increased workload, but the request was turned down; as a result, the employees had resorted to strike and "go slow". On 21st April, 1982, the first respondent served a notice upon the Secretary of the petitioner indicating that it was proposed to withdraw the recognition and calling upon to show cause against the proposed action by 5th May, 1982. The Secretary of the petitioner addressed a letter requesting for grant of two months' time to give reply to the various points raised. It was also mentioned in the reply that the matter relating to the recognition of a registered Trade Union of Class III employees is sub-judice in a Court of law. The first respondent did not give any reply to the application for extension of time and on 17th May, 1982, addressed a letter to the petitioner communicating the decision to withdraw the recognition. The petitioner was asked to hand over possession of the room allotted to the Association along with the other property of the Bank in its possession.

(3.) The substance of the stand taken by the Bank is some what as follows : The grant of recognition was its voluntary act and had no statutory basis. De-recognition order was purely administrative in nature, such a decision having been taken as the petitioner had violated the terms of the Code of Discipline and had indulged in unlawful activities. The petitioner was not legally entitled to any show cause notice, but it was given ex abundanti cautela to avoid giving any room for debate on the question. Instead of showing cause and giving reply on merits, the petitioner unjustifyingly claimed two months' time to reply and that too by raising a "legal plea". As the recognition carried with it the corresponding obligation to observe the Code of Discipline and "as the association had admittedly not carried on its obligation under the Code of Discipline", the management was justified in withdrawing the recognition. In any event, in the absence of legal right to be recognized "it is open to the Bank to withdraw the recognition for such reasons as it may consider fit and proper."