BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION Vs. MAHAVIR COOP. BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an Award of the Industrial Court, dated September 30, 1985, made in Reference (IC) No. 18 of 1983, a reference under Section 73 -A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered Trade Union recognised as the representative Union in the Co -operative Banking Industry within the local areas of Shirol and Hatkangale in Kolhapur District, and Miraj Taluka of District Sangli. The petitioner pertained raised an industrial disputeon behalf of the employees by a Charter of Demands dated November 1, 1981. The industrial dispute raised by the petitioner, inter alia, to Pay Scales, Special Allowances, Dearness Allowance, House rent Allowance, Other Allowances, Medical Aid and Expenses, Transfer, Seniority List, Promotions and Retrospective Effect. The industrial dispute was processed under the conciliation machinery under the Act and resulted in Reference (IC) No. 18 of 1983 being made to the Industrial Court for its arbitration under Section 73 -A of the Act. The parties appeared before the Industrial Court and led evidence on their respective cases. After considering the material placed on record, the Industrial Court made an Award dated September 30, 1985. Though the Award pertains to 10 demands, the petitioner challenges only some of the directions in the Award which shall be referred to in the course of the judgment.

(3.) THE first challenge to the Award is that, as against Rs. 250 rise which was demanded by the wage Scales and Dearness Allowance demands put forward by the petitioner with effect from November 1, 1981, the Award results only in an increase of Rs. 250 per employee per month from July 1, 1983. The contention of Ms. Sarnaik, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, is two - fold. Firstly, she contends that the First Respondent Bank is a 'B' Class Bank and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in not awarding Wage Scales and Dearness Allowance as applicable to 'B' Class Banks. Secondly, she contends that the material on record clearly shows that there was enough justification for granting retrospective effect to the Award from November 1, 1981 (ie., from the date of the demand), but the Tribunal erred in granting retrospective effect to the Award from July 1, 1983, the date of reference. As to the first point, Ms. Sarnaik fairly conceded that there is no material placed before the Court, below or here, on the basis of which it could be ascertained whether the First Respondent was a 'B' Class bank. In fact, I asked Ms. Sarnaik as to what were the criteria on the basis of which Banks are categorised into different classes, so that on the basis of the financial data of the Bank reproduced in paragraph 10 and 11 of the Award, an effort could be made to ascertain if the Bank did fall into 'B' Class as contended by her. In fact, when the matter reached for hearing on September 8, 1994, Ms. Sarnaik expressed difficulty that since the Union is from Kolhapur and she was not in possession of the relevant information, she might need a few days time. I acceded to her request and posted the matter for hearing today. She tells me today that, despite intimation sent to the Union, no information has been received on this count. The net result is that there is no material on record, before the Tribunal below or before this court, form which it could be ascertained whether the First Respondent -Bank falls into 'B' Class of Banks. In the absence of relevant material, it is not possible to accept the contention, nor it is possible to fault the reasoning of the Tribunal on this score.