PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. GANPAT LAXMAN KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent -workman was at the relevant time, working with the petitioner -bank as Special Assistant in Bombay. In June, 1982 there were three vacancies for Accountants in the regions i.e. Bombay and Pune where the first respondent was working as Special Assistant. According to a settlement arrived at between the Punjab National Bank and the All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation on 7th March, 1978, the 37 eligible candidates for the promotion to the post of Accountants were interviewed, including the first respondent and 11 were selected. The first respondent was at serial No. 2 in the selected list. He was offered the post of the Accountant on promotion by a letter dated 6th July, 1982 and was posted at Pune i.e., within the region in which he was working as per the terms of settlement mentioned hereinabove. However, by a letter dated 8th July, 1982 the Union representing the first respondent wrote to the petitioner -bank raising dispute that the first respondent on promotion could not have been posted at Pune as he was an office -bearer of a Committee of the union and was activist trade union leader in Bombay. It was also demanded of the bank that he (first respondent) be posted at Bombay alone and in any case one S. R. Marathe who was working as an Accountant in Bombay had desired to be transferred to Pune and, therefore, he be transferred to Pune and in his place the first respondent be retained in Bombay. The petitioner -bank wrote back to the first respondent a letter dated 14th July, 1982 stating that his representation for being retained at Bombay was rejected and that since he had failed to report to the place of his posting within a stipulated time, he was debarred from promotion/officiating for a period of one year from the date of the refusal to join his new posting. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the second respondent Industrial Tribunal as an industrial dispute under Reference No. CGIT -2/1 of 1982 was pending. The second respondent by his impugned award dated May 19, 1983 granted relief to the first respondent that if anybody who was junior to the first respondent had officiated during the relevant period under the same cadre or lower in the post of an Accountant, the extra allowance earned by such incumbent shall be calculated and the petitioner -bank shall pay the same to the first respondent. It is pertinent to note here an admitted fact that the first respondent was promoted as an Accountant in the usual course afterwards.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by such an award made by the second respondent, the petitioner -bank filed the present writ petition.

(3.) WITH a view to understand the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties it may be noted here that the first respondent was promoted to the post of Accountant in the Junior Management Grade Scale -I in fulfilment of clause No. 5 of the settlement dt. 7th March, 1978 between the petitioner -bank and All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation. It may also be noted here that the consequences arising out of his refusal to taken up the promotion or failure to report at the place of posting were covered by clause 7 of the said settlement. The crucial point, therefore, is whether the letter dated 8th July, 1982 written by the Vice -President of the Punjab National Bank Staff Union to the petitioner -bank amounts to refusal to take promotion or failure to report at the place of the new posting of the promotion. The said latter reads as under :