THE SECRETARY, BANK EMPLOYEES UNION KOLHAPUR Vs. THE CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANGLI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Original Complainant Union under Proviso to Section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 to review order refusing to grant interim relief passed below its application (Exh. U -2) under section 30(2) of the Act in Complaint (ULP) No. 310 of 2000 and then to grant interim relief restraining the Respondents from terminating services of the employees merely they have attained age of 58 years, by allowing original interim application (Exh. U -2). The Complainant is approved and representative union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) under the B.I.R. Act for all local areas of Sangli District for the banking industries in Co -operative Sector. Respondent No. 1 is the Chairman of Sangli District Central Co -operative Bank Ltd., whereas Respondent No. 2 is its Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). The Bank got standing orders certified under the B.I.R. Act. As per clause 22(7) of the certified standing orders, stipulated age of retirement of employee is 60 years. Meeting of Bank. Board of Directors took place on 30th November 1999 wherein, it was resolved to reduce age of retirement of the employees from 60 to 58 years. A clarificatory note was appended to the resolution that the employees to whom Provisions of B.I.R. Act are not applicable be retired with immediate effect on attaining age of 58 years and for the employees amendable to the BIR Act and covered by the certified standing orders, an application prescribed for the amendment of said clause, shall be made to the competent authority. Consequently, the Bank did not pass any orders regarding retirement of the employees, who, according to the Bank, fall under the category of the employees under the B.I.R. Act and to whom the standing orders are applicable. But the Bank issued retirement orders to 22 employees on the ground that they have completed age of 58 years. It is also an admitted position that 10 employees have already retired.

(2.) THE Union filed above Complaint on 8th August 2000, inter -alia contending that clause 22(7) of the certified standing orders was provides for extension not exceeding one year at a time or two years in all, if an employee is found medically fit. However, no such provision was made in Board Resolution dated 30th November 1999 to grant extension subject to medically fitness. The Resolution made provision to retire the employee to whom the B.I.R. Act is not applicable with immediate effect on their competition of 58 years. The Bank has made an application for amendment of clause 22(7) of the standing orders to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and enquiry thereof is in progress. But the Bank then without waiting for approval to the amendment to the standing order, issued retirement orders to 22 employee. In the eyes of law. Unilateral amendment change in the standing order is illegal.

(3.) IT is further case of the Union that if services of respective employees are terminated on the pretext of retirement acting upon Board resolution, they would suffer irreparable injury. The Union, therefore, filed application Exh. U -2 under section 30(2) of the Act restraining the Bank from terminating services of any of the employees on the ground that they have attained age of 58 years.