DHARAM SINGH RAJPUT Vs. BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 508 and 1286 of 1978) will be disposed of by this judgment as the same are identical both on facts and law. Civil Writ Petition No. 508 of 1978, has been filed by three employees of the Bank of India at Chandigarh who are also the office-bearers of of the Bank of India Employee's Association Punjab; Civil Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1978, has been filed by the General Secretary, Central Bank of India Employee's Union, Punjab, and also on behalf of the Central Bank of India Employee's Union.

(2.) Both the Bank of India and the Central Bank of India of which the petitioners were employees and were working as such in their Branches at Chandigarh and Ludhiana are statutory corporations which were brought into existence in pursuance of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The petitioners claimed to be workmen as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. It is the admitted case of the petitioners and the respondent Banks that the conditions of service regarding the working hours, salary, bonus etc. are regulated by the bipartite settlement arrived at on July 23, 1971, which has a statutory force under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the averments in Civil Writ Petition No. 508 of 1978, the All India Bank Employee's Association of which the associations of the petitioners were the federating units, issued notices to the managements of the respondent Banks regarding the settlement of outstanding genuine demands of the workmen in regard to wage revision, bonus, dearness allowance and other conditions of service and the managements were intimated that the Bank employees will go on strike for the first four hours on December 29, 1977 and for the whole of the day of December 30, 1977, in case their demands were not satisfied. Instead of meeting the demands, the respondent Banks affixed a notice on the notice board on Dec. 28, 1977, a copy of which is Annexure P. 1, according to which if any employee of the Bank did not report for work for any part of the day, he was to be treated to be absent for the whole day and as such, he need not report for work during any part of the working hours on that day and that he will forfeit his salary, for the whole day. Legality of this notice was challenged by the petitioners in their reply, copy Annexure P. 2. In a subsequent reply dated Dec. 31, 1977, a copy of which is Annexure p. 3, it was stated that the staff, the particulars of which were given therein, wanted to resume work on Dec. 29, 1977, at 1.45 P. M., but they were not allowed to do so and that the action of the Bank was illegal and arbitrary. The Regional office of the respondent Bank issued another notice, a copy of which is Annexure p. 4, to the effect that the contract of service and the nature of duties of the Bank employees required effective functioning throughout the working hours of the day on which the Bank was open and their absence without authority for a part of the day will authorise the management to deduct the whole day's salary. Subsequently, another letter was issued,. a copy of which is Annexure P-5, in which it was clarified that no salary will be payable to the Bank employees who observed partial or full day strike on Dec. 29 and 30, 1977 and adjustment in this regard in connection with the deduction of salary will be made front their salaries payable for the month of Jan. 1978. The averments in the other petition are almost identical. It is the case of the petitioners that the Bank employees of both the respondent Banks at Chandigarh and Ludhiana went on strike for the first four hours on Dec. 29, 1977 and for the whole day on Dec. 30,1977, and that they were not allowed to resume duty after the expiry of the four hours when they went to the Banks to report for duty on Dec. 29, 1977.

(3.) According to the petitioners in both the petitions, these notices by the Bank managements were illegal and violated the bipartite settlement regarding conditions of service and the deduction of the salary for the whole day of December 29, 1977, from the pay bills of the petitioners was in violation of S. 17, the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, (hereinafter called the Act). Both these petitions are under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing these notices and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent Banks to pay the salary of the Bank employees for Dec. 29, 1977.