LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-119

NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

Decided On September 28, 2011
NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Appellant
V/S
NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a Central Cooperative Bank. It was registered in the year 1961. According to it, it has a total strength of about 139 employees belonging to either of the two registered and recognized trade unions, i.e. the respondents nos. 1 and 5 herein respectively. The employees comprise officers, supervisors, clerks and sub-staff who are members of either of the Unions.

(2.) The petitioners case is that since its inception the respondent no. 1 Bank had been paying an allowance to all its employees on the eve of the Durga Puja every year. This was paid besides the regular salaries and other payments. Over the years it came to be known as the Customary Puja Allowance. The petitioners have given a list of different rates at which such allowance was paid to its employees from year to year. It appears from their own statement that from 1966 to 1996 the allowance was paid @ 16.66 per cent of the basic pay along with the usual Dearness Allowance.

(3.) The petitioners further state that there was a general pay revision which was implemented with effect from April 1, 1997 in terms of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank by merger of the half of the rate of the Customary Puja Allowance. Subsequently in the year 1999 by a bipartite agreement between the management of the petitioner no.- 1 and both the trade unions in respect of the alteration in the payment of the Customary Puja Allowance it was agreed that the regular employees of the Bank shall be eligible for the Allowance in lieu of bonus from the year 1997 to 1998 @ 8.33 per cent of the aggregate of the basic pay and dearness allowance. The maximum amount of payment varied from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 16,000/- according to the official status of the employees. The petitioners insist that the agreement was the result of a mutual and bilateral settlement and not in course of any conciliation proceeding nor was it the result of any reference under S. 10 A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.