BANK OF MADURA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Justice B.C. Basak on August 23, 1985 passed an Order in the matter of Bank of Madura Limited vs. Union of India and Others. The said order has been challenged in this appeal on two grounds. Firstly, although it had been recorded that the parties had no abjection to an Order being passed by the Learned Judge, the Bank of Madura, the appellant before this Court, has seriously challenged that observation of the Court on the ground that the Bank did not authorise the Learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the Bank either to consent or not to object to an Order that was going to be passed by the Learned Court below. Secondly, the appellant had contended that, in an application for setting aside the award passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal the Learned Court below either should have allowed the application or dismissed the said application; whereas the Learned Judge has modified the award to certain extent. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, Learned Lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court to do the same. The Learned Trial Judge further held in that impugned Order that the Circular, dated 11th December, 1981 issued by the Appellant-Bank shall stand and has not been superseded, but at the same time the Learned Trial Judge clarified the said Circular in the manner as indicated in the order itself. Reference to the Central Industrial Tribunal had been made for determination of the issue as set out hereinbelow:

(2.) Such reference was made by the Government of India, ministry of Labour, on 2nd of February, $983 inasmuch as five of the employees of the Appellant-Bank, viz., Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Smt. Maitrayee Banerjee, Smt. Archana Kanungo, Babla Saha and Smt. Debjani Basu, absented themselves for the period as mentioned in the said award for which wage-cut had been effected for the period of leave which was not sanctioned by the Appellant-Bank. Although the Appellant Bank was not a party to the Bipartite Settlement, but it had incorporated in its condition of service and leave rules - 13.21, which provides that an employee may avail of privilege leave for a period of more than four days at a time on the ground of sickness on production of Medical Certificate, and 13.33, which provides that all sick leave shall be granted on production of a Medical Certificate acceptable to the Bank. Those rules entitle the Bank to insist upon a Medical Certificate at the time of grant of the privilege leave for a period of more than four days on the ground of sickness upon the production of such Medical Certificate and such Certificate shall be acceptable to the Bank and also a Certificate which may be termed as 'fitness Certificate' at the time of resumption of duties and/or rejoining of duties. While disposing of the reference on the issue that had been referred to for determination, the Learned Tribunal instead of determining whether such wage-cut was justifiable or not, which was the subject matter of the reference, had gone beyond the reference in holding in the award itself that the demand of two Certificates from the employees was unreasonable and impracticable. There was no reference by the Central Government for the purpose of determining as to whether the Circular incorporating the terms and conditions of such leave was regular or not. The question of annulment of the said Circular was not the subject-matter of the reference before the Learned Tribunal. As indicated earlier, the only question, which has been referred to, was whether the action of wage-cut in respect of those employees by the Bank of Madura was justified or not.

(3.) Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act provides: