SINDHUDURG DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. SINDHUDURG SAHAKARI BANK KARMACHARI SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 raises some fundamental questions in regard to the conduct and procedure of the Wage Board established by the State Government under section 86a of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ( Act for short ).

(2.) THE circumstances can be briefly stated : The petitioner is a bank and a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The respondent No. 1 is a trade union registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1946, and is also an approved and representative union as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The respondent no. 2 is the President of the union and is also a member of Parliament. He is also a member of the wage Board constituted by the State Government under section 86a of the Act. The petitioner had signed a settlement dated 26th November, 1993 with the respondent No. 1 union and had thereby revised the service conditions of the employees of the bank. The respondent No. 2 was a signatory to the settlement as representative of the respondent No. 1 union. The respondent No. 1 union gave a fresh charter of demands by notice in form L under section 42 (2) of the Act, raising various demands on behalf of the workmen. The union sent a copy of the notice of change raising charter of demands to the Conciliator concerned and other authorities. As the demands raised by the union were not acceptable to the petitioner bank, the union sent the statement of the case in form N to the conciliator under section 54 of the Act. By his order dated 22nd July, 1996, the Conciliator recorded that the dispute is incapable of being settled by conciliation. On 13th August, 1996, the respondent No. 1 union made a reference to the wage Board under section 86cc of the Act and by the said reference preferred a charter of demands to the Wage Board for adjudication. After receiving the reference, the Wage Board issued notices calling upon the petitioner to file its written statement. The legality and validity of the proceedings before the Wage Board is sought to be questioned by the petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution.

(3.) THE petitioner Bank has challenged the proceedings before the Wage Board mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner contends that the presence of the respondent No. 2 on the Wage Board is contrary to the settled principle of law that no man shall be a judge in his own cause ( Nemo debet esse judex in causa propria sua ). The petitioner points out that the respondent No. 2 also happens to be the president of the respondent no. 1 union who has submitted the demands to the wage Board for adjudication. Therefore, according to the petitioner the respondent No. 2 is disqualified from acting as a member of the Wage board and this disqualification introduces a fatal infirmity in the constitution of the Wage Board itself. Secondly, the petitioner contends that as provided under section 42, the respondent No. 1 should have offered in writing before the conciliator to submit the dispute to arbitration under the Act. According to the petitioner, fulfilment of the said condition is a condition precedent to the maintainability of the reference. Since the union did not offer to submit the dispute to arbitration as required by section 42, the reference made on 13th August,1996 is void ab initio and not maintainable.