P C BANK Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenged in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is the settlement dated 22nd March, 1978 being Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioners also challenge the implementation of this settlement by the promotions given by the Bank. The petitioner,in this application, are six in number. Of these four are the employees of the Bank, fifth is the Indian Overseas Bank employees Union (W.B.), a registered trade union and sixth petitioner is the Indian Overseas Bank Federation. The respondents tot his petition are the Indian Overseas Bank and certain officers of the said Bank as well as the Indian Overseas Bank employees Union, respondent no. 5 and the Regional Labour Commissioner having his office at Madras. As I said, the grievance of the petitioner s was that after the Bank nationalization Act, this Bank became a nationalized Bank and their employees had continued to be the employees of the Bank Under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 under the same terms and conditions until duly altered. Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Banking Companies (A and T), 1970 provided, inter alia, as follows : 12. (2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), every officer or other employee of an existing bank shall become, on the commencement of this Act, as officer or other employee, as the case may be, of the corresponding new bank and shall hold his office or service in that bank on the same terms and conditions and with the other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking of the existing bank had not been transferred to and vested in the corresponding new bank and continue to do so unless and until his employment in the corresponding new bank is terminated or until his remuneration, terms or conditions are duly altered by the corresponding new bank.?

(2.) Section 19 also provides power to make regulations altering the terms and conditions of the employment. It is not necessary for me to refer in detail to section 19 because there has not been any alteration of the regulations of employment in terms of Section 19 and I am not concerned with this question in this application. As I said hereinbefore, the petitioners grievance is mainly that the promotions which have been given to certain employees in the category of officers, as shown in Annexure-G, were illegal. The petitioners contend that such promotions were illegal because for mainly two reasons. The petitioner' first and the main argument is that the said promotions were purported to have been implemented as a result of the settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent no. 5 on the 22nd March, 1978. It is stated that the said settlement, though described as a settlement on the promotion policy, was not a settlement in the course of conciliation and as such was not binding on others namely, those who are not members of the respondent no. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to determine firstly, whether it was a settlement in course of the conciliation. Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines settlement as follows : ?2. (p) 'Settlement' means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.?

(3.) Section 12 deals with the duties of the conciliation officer and how the settlement is to be arrived at in course of the conciliation proceedings. Section 12 provides as follows : ?12. Duties of Conciliation Officers :- (1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given,, shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner. (2) The conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducting the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute. (3) If a settlement of the dispute or any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof the appropriate Government of an officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate Government together with a memorandum of the settlement signed by the parties to the dispute. (4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, a soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at, (5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied that there is a case for reference to a Board, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal it may make such reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore. (6) A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government : Provided that, subject to the approval of the conciliation officer the time of the submission of the report may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute.?