ANDHRA BANK OFFICERS UNION Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy between parties is in a very narrow compass in this Writ Petition. The question regarding recognition of trade union of Officers of a bank is at stake. A declaration is sought by Petitioner-Union that the action of the respondent (Andhra Bank) in not following the procedure contemplated in the Schedule appended to the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980 (for short the 'Scheme') for recognition of majority union of Officers is ultra vires and illegal. A further direction is sought to be issued to the 3rd respondent to conduct verification for the purpose of recognition of the majority status of Officers' union.

(2.) The 4th respondent (All India Andhra Bank Officers Federation) is strenuously contesting the claims advanced by the petitioner-Union as regards the petitioner's eligibility for recognition. After narrating the requirements of the Scheme as regards the constitution of Board of Directors as contemplated by the Schedule annexed to the Scheme, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Mr. B. Nalini Kumar submitted that the Board of Directors of the bank, among other members, was required to take one representative from workmen and one representative from non-workmen, i.e., the Officers working in the 1st respondent-Bank and that the present Writ petition was concerned with the non-workmen and the procedure to be adopted for recognising majority union of Officers. The circular dated 6/11/1992 issued by the 1st respondent-Bank in this regard was staunchly pressed into service. A copy of the said Circular dated 6/11/1992 is produced by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition. The circular expresses the concern of the Management regarding the rival claims of majority status and lays down the procedure for identifying the majority status and other related points as follows :-

(3.) It is further pointed out by the 4th respondent that there was a series of litigations between the various unions of Officers (to which 4th respondent was not a party). In those Writ Petitions consent orders were passed by the High Court for verification of majority union by Chief Commissioner of Labour under the procedure laid down by the Code of Discipline., However, the said orders, according to the 4th respondent, had no bearing as those orders had not taken into consideration the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act or the applicability of Code of Discipline vis-a-vis the Officers and in fact in W.P. No. 402/1986 dated 1/12/1986, the High Court categorically held that the Code of Discipline wag not applicable to Officers as they were not workmen. A direction was also issued under the said Writ Petition to the Chief Labour Commissioner to verify respective claims of various Officers' unions.