Bombay High Court
All India Bank Of Maharashtra Employees ... vs The Bank Of Maharashtr And Anothera on 2 August, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:18334-DB
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*1* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1884 OF 2021
ALL INDIA BANK OF MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES
FEDERATION.
-VERSUS-
THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER.
...
Shri P.N. Khedkar, Advocate i/by Shri U.M. Bopshetty, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE :- 20th August, 2024
Per Court :-
1. This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the
order dated 02.08.2024.
2. It is pointed out that in the cause title of the
judgment dated 02.08.2024, the surname of the learned Advocate
for the Petitioner is wrongly typed as 'Bodshetty' instead of
'Bopshetty'.
3. The motion is allowed. The surname be,
accordingly, corrected and the corrected judgment be uploaded.
kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*2* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
(This judgment dated 02.08.2024 stands corrected and uploaded in view of the order dated
20.08.2024 passed on the Motion for speaking to the minutes.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2021
All India Bank of Maharashtra
Employees Federation
(Through its General Secretary,
Devidas S/o. Ramchandra Tuljapurkar,
Age: 62 years, Occu.: Retired Employee of
the Bank of Maharashtra)
having his Office at C-3, Sector N-1,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Bank of Maharashtra
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Through its Managing Directgor,
Central Office, "Lokmangal",
1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 005
2. The Union of India ... RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. U. M. Bopshetty, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ajay
Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1
....
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 02.08.2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per - Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*3* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner before us is a trade union, which is
undisputed. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B), as
under:-
"B. By a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or directions in the like nature,
i) the impugned Sub Clause (d) of the Clause
6 of the Employees Grievances Redressal Policy as
approved by the Board of Directors of the
Respondent Bank on 22nd November, 2019 and as
Circulated by the Bank Administration on 30 th
November, 2019 vide letter
No.AX1/ST/BM/Cir.93/2019-20, may please be
quashed and set aside
AND
ii) the 1st Respondent-Bank may please be
directed to delete the impugned Clause (d) of the
Clause 6 of the said Employees Grievances
Redressal Policy AND
(iii) further the 1st Respondent Bank may also
please be directed to modify the said Policy to
allow representation/participation of Office
Bearers of the Petitioner-Federation (Recognized
Union) who are retired employees of the 1 st
Respondent Bank."
3. The Petitioner has challenged clause 6 of the
Employees Grievance Redressal Policy of the Respondent
bank, approved by it's Board of Directors on 22.11.2019 and
circulated by vide communication dated 30.11.2019. The
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*4* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
challenge is posed more specifically to Sub Clause (d) of
Clause 6, which prohibits participation of retired employees of
the bank in the meetings of the grievance redressal
committee. By Clause 6(d), the bank has permitted only those
elected office bearers of the union who are 'in-service'
employees of the bank, to participate in the grievance
redressal committee meetings. The Employees' Grievance
Redressal Committee is constituted under Clause-viii of
Clause-II of the Code of Conduct and Discipline, which is a
part of the Memorandum of Settlement signed with the
Employees federation, dated 22.10.1988.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
4. The grievance of the Petitioner Employees
Federation is limited only to Clause 6(d), by which, though a
person is elected as an office bearer of the union in order to
participate in the wage revision negotiations or demands
negotiations and to represent the union which is the sole
bargaining agent in the bank, would not be permitted to
participate in the grievance redressal committee's meetings, if
he has retired from the service. The Petitioner union is
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*5* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
relying upon a judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court
dated 23.12.2022, reported in MAT 83 of 2019, Writ Petition
Appeal No.29480 of 2017 (UCO Bank Vs. All India UCO Bank
Officers Federation and Others), with COT No.26 of 2019 (All
India UCO Bank Officers Federation and Others Vs. UCO Bank
and Others).
5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner points out
that the learned Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has
recorded the facts of the case in paragraph numbers 4 to 10,
wherein, an identical situation was brought before the
Calcutta High Court. The union was aggrieved by the fact that
only serving officers/employees of the union were permitted
to participate in the meetings/discussions/negotiations with
the management. All those who had retired, notwithstanding
that they were elected as the union office bearers, were not
permitted to participate in the meetings for representing the
members of the union.
6. The learned Advocate then points out that the
Calcutta High Court held in favour of the union, in paragraph
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*6* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
numbers 20 to 36, which read as under:-
"20. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid Rules of the
respondent no. 1 Federation that in case the ordinary
member happens to be an office-bearer of the
association, the Central Executive Committee may allow
such ordinary member to continue as office-bearers of
the Federation even after his retirement from service.
Similarly, a life member may also be allowed to
continue as office-bearers in the same position as is/was
held by them prior to their retirement from Bank's
service till next Triennial Conference.
21. In a democratic set up, the members of an
association have a right to elect from amongst them the
office-bearers of the association upon whom
management of the affairs of the Federation shall be
entrusted. The members of the Federation are the best
persons to decide as to who are competent to manage
the affairs of the Federation.
22. Neither the 1926 Act nor the Constitution of the
respondent no. 1 Federation prohibits a retired
employee from continuing as well as performing the
duties as an office-bearer of the respondent no. 1
Federation. The policy decision of the Bank is
inconsistent with the provisions of the 1926 Act and
this Court, therefore, holds the same to be an arbitrary
one.
23. The management of the Bank sought to justify
their decision of imposing restriction on the ground that
only the serving officers shall represent the case of the
serving officers in the best possible manner. The
restriction imposed by the Bank management in the
garb of policy decision, in the considered view of this
Court, amounts to infringing upon the right of the
members of the Federation to elect their office-bearers.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*7* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
The effect of the policy decision is that the members
cannot elect retired persons as office bearers of the
Federation though there is no such restriction either in
the 1926 Act or the Constitution of the Federation. The
selection and/or choice of the office-bearers falls within
the exclusive domain of the members of the Federation
and management cannot, in the garb of policy decision,
infringe upon such right of the members. The members
of the association are the best persons to decide who
shall represent them in the negotiations with the
management of the Bank and such choice cannot be left
to the sweet will of the management of the Bank. This
Court is, therefore, of the considered view that office-
bearers of the Federation who has since retired from
service cannot be debarred by the Management of the
Bank from participating in the negotiations with the
management of the Bank.
24. The Hon'ble Single Judge after taking note of the
undisputed factual position that the respondent no. 1
Federation is a registered Majority Organization of
Officers and that the respondent no. 2 is a duly elected
office-bearer as a life member of it, was right in holding
that the Bank in formulating its policy decision is in
effect refusing or has refused to negotiate.
25. The Madras High Court in the case of L.
Balasubhramaniam (supra) after considering the
provisions laid down in the explanation to Section
22(2) of the 1926 Act and taking note of the fact that
the bye-laws of the Union do not prohibit office-bearers
to continue in such post even after their retirement held
that the office-bearers of the Union even after their
superannuation are entitled to participate in the
negotiations and discussions with the management of
the Bank pertaining to employer-employee relationship.
The Madras High Court distinguished the judgment in
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*8* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
the case of State Bank of India Staff Association (supra)
by noting that the rules of the association do not permit
any ordinary/honorary member to occupy or continue
in any post in the Central Committee. The decision of
the Madras High Court supports the view taken by this
Court.
26. The sheet anchor of the Bank is the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of
India Staff Association (supra). In the said reported
decision, the Staff Federation followed a policy that none
but a serving employee has to represent Federation or
Circle Union / Association at all levels in bilateral
forums. The appellant no. 2 in the said reported decision
was elected as the General Secretary when he was an
ordinary member, but after his retirement from service
he was not elected as an honorary or a temporary
member. On such factual background, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the said appellant cannot
legitimately claim his continuance as an ordinary
Member and General Secretary of the Union after his
retirement from service and, therefore, cannot claim a
right to negotiate with the management as a
representative of the Union.
27. The aforesaid decision was subsequently
explained by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Cement Corporation
of India (supra) by observing that in the absence of any
provision in the constitution of the Trade Union for
automatic cessation of membership as a result of
cessation of employment, it cannot be said held that an
employee would cease to be a member of the Trade
Union upon his retirement.
28. In Chairman, SBI and another vs. All Orissa State
Bank Officers' Association and others reported at
(2003) 11 SCC 607, the issue that fell for consideration
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*9* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
was whether a non-recognized association has a right to
espouse the case of officers of the Bank with the
management of the Bank or such right was vested only
upon the recognized association. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its judgment delivered on 06.05.2002 reported
at (2002) 5 SCC 669 held that the management cannot
outrightly refuse to have any discussion with a non-
recognized union in matters relating to service
conditions of individual members and other matters
incidental thereto. However on a review petition filed
against the judgment dated 06.05.2002, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2003) 11 SCC 607 allowed the
review petition thereby recalling the judgment dated
06.05.2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking
note of the grievance procedure circulars held that the
right of representation was not given to the majority
union also and, therefore, there was no discrimination.
The said decision is distinguishable on facts and,
therefore, is not applicable to the case on hand.
29. In UCO Bank Employees' Association & Anr. vs.
UCO Bank & Anr. reported at 2014 SCC OnLine Cal
5074, the decision of the Bank to negotiate at the apex
level on policy matter with the majority union was
challenged on the ground that the same is unreasonable
and against the spirit of the Sastri Award. It was further
contended that the object of collective bargaining
would be frustrated if the other unions are left out of
the discussion. The said decision of the learned Single
Judge of this Court is distinguishable on facts and
therefore, is of no assistance to the Bank.
30. In the case of All India SBBJ Employees'
Coordination Committee vs. Union of India & Ors
reported at 2015 SCC OnLine Rajasthan 11826, the
union issued the notice of strike and nominated the
elected representatives for discussions/ negotiations
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*10* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
who were only serving employees of the Bank and
pursuant to the said notice of strike, the management of
the Bank invited such representatives to participate in
the discussions/negotiations before initiation of strike.
The learned Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court
by its Order dated November 8, 2015 dismissed the writ
petition filed by the union. On an appeal being
preferred therefrom, the Division Bench of that Court in
DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) number 1057 of 2015
passed a judgment on 18.11.2015. The Hon'ble Division
Bench after taking note of the provisions laid down in
Section 3 read with Section 36 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and considering the purpose for
such negotiations held that the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act and not the Trade Unions Act
will prevail.
31. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court is based
on the provisions laid down under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Section 3(1) of the said Act lays
down the manner in which the Works Committee in an
industrial establishment is to be established. It further
provides that the representative of the workmen shall
be chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the
workmen engaged in the establishment in consultation
with their Trade Union, if any, registered under the
1926 Act.
32. Section 36 of the 1947 Act provides for
representation of
the parties. Sub-Section (1) thereof provides how a
workman who is a party to the dispute shall be entitled
to be represented in any proceeding under the 1947
Act. Sub-Section 2 thereof provides how an employer
who is party to a dispute shall be entitled to be
represented in a proceeding under the 1947 Act.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*11* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
The issue arising in the Rajasthan decision was with
regard to
a notice for strike under the provisions of the 1947 Act.
33. In the case on hand the issue is how an
association of officers will be represented in the
meetings/ discussions/ negotiations with the
management of the Bank. The issue involved in the
Rajasthan decision is completely different from the case
on hand and therefore, the same do not have any
manner of application to the case on hand.
34. The Hon'ble Single Judge in the judgment and
order impugned herein held that in the event the Bank
is required to have meetings/ discussions/ negotiations
henceforth with the respondent no. 1 Federation, it
must allow the respondent no.2 or any duly elected not
serving in the Bank office-bearer of the Union to
participate in such negotiations/ meetings/ discussions.
However, the Hon'ble Single Judge did not allow the
prayer of the writ petitioners/respondent no. 1 and 2
herein for quashing the impugned resolution dated
November 3rd, 2017 and the letters dated November
3rd , 2017 and November 24th, 2017 for which they
have taken out the Cross-Objection being COT no. 26 of
2019.
35. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court holds
that the management of the Bank had no authority
and/or jurisdiction to impose a restriction in the matter
of representation by the office-bearers of the Federation
to the effect that only serving officers who are duly
elected office-bearers of the Majority Officers'
Association shall participate. Such restriction, in the
considered view of this Court, is an arbitrary exercise of
power by the management of the Bank and, therefore,
the policy decision and all consequential action taken
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*12* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
pursuant thereto are liable to be set aside and quashed.
Such policy decision of the Bank infringes upon the
right of the members of the Federation to elect the
office-bearers according to their choice. Therefore, this
Court is unable to accept the contention of Mr.
Choudhury that the writ petition was not maintainable.
36. Accordingly, the decision taken in the meeting of
the Board of Directors held on 3rd November, 2017 to
allow only serving officers who are duly elected office-
bearers of the Majority Officers' Association in
meetings/ discussions/ negotiations are hereby set
aside and cancelled. All consequential steps taken
pursuant thereto including the letters dated 3rd
November, 2017 and 24th November, 2017 are also set
aside and quashed.
The Cross-Objection being COT no. 26 of 2019 stands
allowed. The Appeal being MAT 23 of 2019 stands
dismissed without any order as to cost. Connected
applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be
supplied to
the parties upon compliance of all formalities. "
7. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Talsania, along
with the learned Advocate Shri Deshpande, has strenuously
opposed this Petition by contending that the experience of the
management in allowing retired employees/elected office
bearers to participate in the GRC meetings with the
management, is not happy. Earlier, an attempt was made by
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*13* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
permitting even retired employees to participate in the
meetings.
8. It is further submitted that, a long time ago, the
bank had maintained the same policy of prohibiting retired
employees from participating in the grievances redressal
meetings on the ground that individual grievances have to be
discussed at the regional levels and all long term policies had
to be discussed at the central level. To simplify the process at
the regional level, it was decided to permit only three office
bearers working in the region to participate in the industrial
relations meetings at the concerned region. Hence, the
central office bearers/office bearers working in other regions
in the meeting, were restrained from participating in such
meetings, with effect from 01.01.2010. This aspect was
brought to the notice of the Petitioner by the bank vide the
communication dated 21.12.2009. Shri Talsania has further
canvassed that the bank, thereafter, consistently maintained
the said policy by permitting only representatives who are in
service of the bank, to attend such meetings.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*14* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
9. Mr. Bopshetty, the learned Advocate for the Union
points out a communication dated 10.10.2014, by which only
those five representatives of the All India Bank of Maharashtra
Employees' Federation Majority Award Staff Union, who are in
active service of the bank, were permitted in the zonal level
industrial relations meetings. However, the management
decided to allow only 'in-service' representatives in such
meetings, out of which one representative would be from the
bank level federation, one would be the General Secretary or
any of the union level office bearer of the union affiliated to
the federation and three would the representatives from
within the zone.
10. Shri Bopshetty further points out the circular
issued by the bank dated 24.11.2014, by which the policy of
the bank was amended and the bank decided to allow even
those office bearers of the majority worker union, who have
retired, to participate in the I.R. meetings and office zonal
office meetings. The General Secretary of the respective unit
was given the liberty to decide the five representatives to
participate in the zonal level I.R. meetings. However, by the
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*15* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
impugned board resolution, dated 22.11.2019 and by the
employees grievances redressal policy dated 30.11.2019,
Clause 6(d) was introduced for disallowing those elected
representatives who are not in service of the bank, from
participating in the meetings of the grievance redressal
committee.
11. For clarity, it would be apposite to reproduce
Clause-6 of the policy, here under:-
6) GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MEETING /
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS MEETING WITH AWARD
STAFF UNION
a) The periodicity is subject to number of issues to
be discussed in the meeting and shall be at the
discretion of the Zonal Head / Authority
concerned.
b) Meeting shall be held maximum for one day.
c) Issues arising out of union rivalry shall not be
discussed in the meeting.
d) Meeting can be attended only by the
representatives who are in the service of the Bank.
e) Zonal Heads shall not allow the number of
representatives to exceed the permitted limit for
any reason whatsoever.
f) The issues pertaining to disciplinary matters &
Vigilance matters shall not be discussed in the
meeting.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*16* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
g) The issues pertaining to day-to-day
administration/managerial functions shall not be
discussed in the meeting.
h) No policy issues shall be discussed at Zonal Office
level with any registered trade union including
the majority union i.e. All India Bank of
Maharashtra Employees' Federation.
i) In the Industrial relations meeting, the issues
pertaining to business development shall also be
discussed. Apart from issues of Industrial
grievance the business development shall also be
discussed in the meeting.
j) The broader HR issues / operational issues &
issues of common interest of the employees only
shall be discussed in the meeting.
k) Minutes of the meeting shall be signed by both
the parties in respect of majority union. The
minutes shall contain the issues relating to
grievances.
l) In case of meeting with other registered unions,
brief gist of the discussion shall be prepared. The
gist shall contain the issues relating to grievances.
m) Normally it is expected that the employee shall, in
the first instance take up his grievance with the
Branch / Dept. Head who shall take a decision or
refer the matter to Zonal Office. If the grievance
is not redressed then the Union representative
may take up the grievance at Zonal Office.
n) No zonal Head / Authority is permitted to grant
any benefit over and above the provisions of the
Bipartite settlement (BPS) & guidelines issued by
IBA/ Govt., or any other provisions or rules of the
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*17* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
Bank. In case of any doubt regarding
interpretation of any provision / guidelines etc.,
the Zonal head / Authority concerned shall refer
the matter to HRM Dept, H.O. Pune, in writing for
guidance / decision. While referring the issues to
HRM Dept complete facts should be informed.
o) Any demand of any union which is not as per
provisions of BPS shall not be considered at Zonal
Office level and need not be referred to HRM
Dept for any reason.
p) With focus to use technology and to save time,
transit and cost, the representatives of federation/
central committee should, as far as possible,
attend meetings through video conference facility.
q) The periodicity, representation, nature of issues in
the meeting are detailed herein below.
r) Representatives attending the meeting are entitled
to TA/DA and duty leave as applicable.
s) The Zonal Office shall provide attendance
certificate to perticipating union representatives
subject to above condition.
t) The TA/DA claims have to be forwarded to Head
Office for sanction along with attendance
certificate and relevant tickets/documents.
u) The gist of the meeting should be sent to Head
Office within reasonable period."
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
12. We deem it appropriate to refer to a circular dated
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*18* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
17.03.2010, issued by the bank to all the regional heads
regarding industrial relations meetings. The number of
representatives to be allowed in the meetings to be held at the
region level, were prescribed by the bank. The three office
bearers/representatives working in the region, were permitted
to participate. For the other award, staff unions (minority
unions), two office bearers/representatives working in the
region, were permitted. The Bank of Maharashtra
Organization/majority officers union, was permitted to be
represented by three office bearers/representatives, who were
working in the region. For the Bank of Maharashtra Officers
Association and other minority officers union, two office
bearers/representatives who were working in the region, were
permitted.
13. However, by the amendment circulated by the
bank to all the branches and officers dated 24.11.2014, even
retired employees were permitted to participate in the
meetings of the grievance redressal committee. A further
circular was issued on 03.03.2015, allowing office bearers of
all trade unions, who have retired from the bank, to
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*19* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
participate in the I.R. meetings at the Head Office and the
Zonal office, on trial basis for six months. It was observed
that if there is a positive feedback and there is value addition
in the industrial relations, the policy may be continued for
allowing retired employees to participate in the said meetings.
14. We find from Clause 6(j) that broader H.R. issues/
operational issues and issues of common interest of the
employees only, would be discussed in the meeting of the
grievance redressal committee. By sub clause (d), only 'in-
service' elected office bearers were to be allowed to
participate in the said meeting.
15. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Talsania has
vehemently canvassed that a temporary deviation was made
and the management departed from the earlier policy of
restraining retired employees from participating in the
meetings, vide the circular dated 24.11.2014. It was purely
on experimental basis in order to assess as to whether the
meetings could be conducted smoothly or whether there could
be any impediment on account of the retired employees
having participated in such meetings. It was further
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*20* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
canvassed that as local issues and zonal issues with regard to
industrial relations and the problems of the workers were to
be discussed in such grievance redressal committee, there
was no necessity to permit the retired elected office bearers
on zonal basis or national basis to participate in such
meetings.
16. He has further canvassed that the experience was
not found to be encouraging and there was no value addition
by the retired employees/representatives, who participated in
the industrial resolution meetings. To the contrary, it was
found that retired employees had no personal stakes involved
and were rather adamant and not flexible in their approach
and caused a stalemate on several occasions. Hence, it was
decided to withdraw the decision of allowing retired
employees to participate in the meetings of the G.R.C. He
relies upon the affidavit in reply as well as the additional
affidavit filed by the bank in support of this contention.
17. In Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, the learned Single Judge concluded
vide order dated 05.04.2011, passed in Writ Petition No.2596
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*21* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
of 2011, that those workers who were earlier the employees
of the company, can form a union even after losing their
employment. The said order was carried before the Appeal
Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.78 of 2013 (Bajaj Auto
Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others). The Appeal
Bench delivered an order on 31.01.2018, concluding that such
union of former employees, can be registered.
18. In All Escorts Employees Union Vs. State of
Haryana and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a
judgment on 14.09.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.12843 - 12844
of 2017. It was held in paragraph 22, as under:-
"22) From the definition of Trade Union contained in
Section 2(h) of the Act, it becomes apparent that such a
Union is formed primarily for the purpose of regulating
the relations between workmen and employers (which
is the instant case) or it can be between workmen and
workmen or between employers and employers. It
includes any federation of two or more Trade Unions
also though we are not concerned with it. When we
keep in mind the aforesaid objective of formation of a
Trade Union, namely, regulating the relations between
the workmen and its employer, normally such a Union
of workmen would be of those workmen who work in a
particular Establishment. This gets further
strengthened when we peruse the definition of Trade
Dispute contained in Section 2(g) of the Act. The Trade
Unions of workmen while regulating their relations
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*22* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
between the employers would normally have
negotiations representing its workmen before the
employer and in case those negotiations do not result in
amicable settlement or resolution of disputes, such
Trade Unions would raise trade dispute with its
employer. Section 6 of the Act mandates a Trade Union
to have its Constitution/Bye-Laws/Rules by
incorporation of the provisions contained therein i.e.
under Section 6. Clause (e) deals with admission of
ordinary members and specifically provides that
ordinary members should be those persons who are
actually engaged or employed in an industry with
which the Trade Union is connected. This provision
implicitly confines the membership to those who are the
workmen of the industry where they are employed. "
19. Under Chapter II-B - Grievance Redressal
Machinery, provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
Section 9C was introduced by the amendment dated
18.08.2010 with effect from 15.09.2010, which provided for
setting up of grievance redressal committee. Clause (1)
provided that every industrial establishment employing
twenty or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance
Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes arising out
of individual grievances. Sub section (2) provided that the
Grievance Redressal Committee would consist of equal
number of members from the employer and the workmen.
Sub section (3) provided a selection of the Chairman of the
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*23* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
Grievance Redressal Committee from amongst the employer
and the workmen, alternately on rotation basis every year.
20. For clarity, Section 9C is reproduced as under:-
"9C. Setting up of Grievance Redressal Machinery.--(1)
Every industrial establishment employing twenty or
more workmen shall have one or more Grievance
Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes
arising out of individual grievances.
(2) The Grievance Redressal Committee shall consist
of equal number of members from the employer and the
workmen.
(3) The chairperson of the Grievance Redressal
Committee shall be selected from the employer and
from among the workmen alternatively on rotation
basis every year.
(4) The total number of members of the Grievance
Redressal Committee shall not exceed more than six:
Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable, one
woman member if the Grievance Redressal Committee
has two members and in case the number of members
are more than two, the number of women members
may be increased proportionately.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section,
the setting up of Grievance Redressal Committee shall
not affect the right of the workman to raise industrial
dispute on the same matter under the provisions of this
Act.
(6) The Grievance Redressal Committee may complete
its proceedings within thirty days on receipt of a written
application by or on behalf of the aggrieved party.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*24* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
(7) The workman who is aggrieved of the decision of
the Grievance Redressal Committee may prefer an
appeal to the employer against the decision of
Grievance Redressal Committee and the employer shall,
within one month from the date of receipt of such
appeal, dispose off the same and send a copy of his
decision to the workman concerned.
(8) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the
workmen for whom there is an established Grievance
Redressal Mechanism in the establishment concerned.] "
21. It is, thus, clear that there is no embargo even
under the Industrial Disputes Act, as regards the
representation of the workers by their representatives in the
G.R.C. There is no express exclusion of a retired employee or
a non employee of the concerned industry from participating
in the meetings of the G.R.C. Under Section 22 of the
M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, the rights of unrecognized
unions were prescribed. Under the rules, officers, members of
the office staff and members of any union (other than a
recognized union), were vested with a right to meet and
discuss with an employer or any person appointed by him in
that behalf, the grievances of any individual member relating
to his discharge, removal, retrenchment, termination of
service and suspension. They were also given the right to
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*25* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
appear on behalf of any of it's members employed in the
undertaking in any domestic or departmental inquiry held by
the employer.
22. It is beyond debate that a trade union is held to
be connected with an industry, only on fulfillment of the
prescription under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Section 22 of
the Trade Unions Act, describes the proportion of office
bearers, to be connected with the industry. The said section
reads as under:-
"22. Proportion of office-bearers to be connected with
the industry.--(1) Not less than one-half of the total
number of the office-bearers of every registered Trade
Union in an unrecognised sector shall be persons
actually engaged or employed in an industry with
which the Trade Union is connected:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, by
special or general order, declare that the provisions of
this section shall not apply to any Trade Union or class
of Trade Unions specified in the order.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"unorganised sector" means any sector which the
appropriate Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (1), all
office-bearers of a registered Trade Union, except not
more than one-third of the total number of the office-
bearers or five, whichever is less, shall be persons
actually engaged or employed in the establishment or
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*26* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
industry with which the Trade Union is connected.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, an
employee who has retired or has been retrenched shall
not be construed as outsider for the purpose of holding an
office in a Trade Union.
(3) No member of the Council of Ministers or a person
holding an office of profit (not being an engagement or
employment in an establishment or industry with which
the Trade Union is connected), in the Union or a State,
shall be a member of the executive or other office-
bearer of a registered Trade Union.]"
23. The explanation below Sub section 2 to Section
22, clearly purports a meaning that an employee who has
retired or has been retrenched, shall not be construed as an
outsider for the purpose of holding an office in a trade union.
With this legal position, a retired employee cannot be treated
as an outsider by any employer or in an industry, as long as
the union is legally connected to the industry.
24. In the case of L. Balasubhramaniam and Anr. Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank and Ors (Madras High Court Writ
Appeal No.2137 of 2013 dated 09.01.2014), it was concluded
that when a retired employee is not treated as an outsider, he
has every right to be elected as an office bearer of a union,
even after his superannuation and will have a right to
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*27* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
participate in the negotiations and meetings of the trade
union with the management, considering the employer-
employee relationship between the management and the
workmen who are represented by his trade union.
25. In Bokajar Cement Corporation Employees'
Union Vs. Cement Corporation of India Limited, (2004) 1 SCC
142, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the judgment
delivered in State Bank of India Staff Association (supra) and
concluded that unless Trade Unions Act does not prohibit a
retired or a former employee, with a provision for an
automatic cessation of the union membership of a retired
employee, he does not cease to be the member of the union
and continuous with his membership.
26. In the Chairman, State Bank of India and another
Vs. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association, (2003)11 SCC
607, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the rights of a
non recognized union/association (a registered
union/association), vis-a-vis a right to espouse the cause of its
members with the management of the bank. It was concluded
that the management cannot out-rightly refuse to have any
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*28* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
discussion with an elected office bearer of a non recognized
union in relation to the service conditions of the individual
members represented by it. This is supported by Section 22 of
the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, which gives rights to the elected
office bearer to even represent an employee in a domestic or
departmental enquiry, which is a personal issue with regard to
such an employee.
27. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
reads as under:-
"36. Representation of parties.--(1) A workman who is
a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented
in any proceeding under this Act by--
(a) [any member of the executive or office bearer] of a
registered trade union of which he is a member:
(b) [any member of the executive or other office
bearer] of a federation of trade unions to which the
trade union referred to in clause (a) is affiliated;
(c) where the worker is not a member of any trade
union, by [any member of the executive or other office
bearer] of any trade union connected with, or by any
other workman employed in, the industry in which the
worker is employed and authorised in such manner as
may be prescribed.
(2) An employer who is a party to a dispute shall be
entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this
Act by--
(a) an officer of an association of employers of which
he is a member;
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*29* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
(b) an officer of a federation of association of employers
to which the association referred to in clause (a) is
affiliated;
(c) where the employer is not a member of any
association of employers, by an officer of any
association of employers connected with, or by any
other employer engaged in, the industry in which the
employer is engaged and authorised in such manner as
may be prescribed.
(3) No party to a dispute shall be entitled to be
represented by a legal practitioner in any conciliation
proceedings under this Act or in any proceedings before
a Court.
(4) In any proceeding [before a Labour Court, Tribunal
or National Tribunal], a party to a dispute may be
represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of
the other parties to the proceedings and [with the leave
of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as
the case may be]."
28. It is, thus, clear that a workman who is a party to
a dispute would be entitled to be represented in any
proceeding, by (a) any member of the executive or other
office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a
member or (b) through any such representative of a
federation to which his union is affiliated to or (c) even any
workman who may not be a member of any trade union, (d)
by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a
trade union connected with the industry or (e) by any other
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*30* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
workman employed in the industry in which the worker is
employed, if authorized in such manner as may be prescribed.
29. In All India UCO Bank (supra), the Division Bench
of the Calcutta High Court came to a conclusion that the
management of the bank had no authority or jurisdiction to
impose a restriction in the matter of representation by the
office bearer or the federation, in a manner that only a serving
officer/employee duly elected as an office bearer of the
majority union/association, would be permitted. Such
restriction imposed by the bank was held to be unsustainable
as an arbitrary exercise of the power by the management. It
was also held that such a restriction would impinged upon the
rights of the members of the union or federation.
Consequently, the decision taken in the meeting of the board
of directors to allow only serving officer bearers could
represent the employees, was quashed and set aside. This
judgment of the Calcutta High Court was carried in Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.2733 of 2023 (UCO Bank and
others Vs. All India UCO Bank Officers Federation and others) .
By order dated 27.03.2023, the SLP was dismissed.
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*31* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
30. We are of the view, in the light of the judicial
pronouncements referred to herein above, and in the absence
of any provision in the constitution of the Trade Union for
automatic cessation of membership of the union as a result of
cessation of employment, that an elected member would not
be an outsider after being elected to a post which is provided
under the constitution of the union. If the law provides
representation by an elected office bearer of the union,
subject to legal restrictions as may be provided in law, the
Employer cannot introduce a restriction so as to create an
embargo on the freedom to represent a member, which would
certainly be an arbitrary act. If such restriction is
unreasonable, irrational, unjustly curbs the freedom of an
elected office bearer and does not stand the test of judicial
scrutiny, such restriction deserves to be struck down in
judicial review for being arbitrary.
31. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed.
The decision of the Respondent bank dated 22.11.2019, to the
extent of introducing Clause 6(d) in the Employees
Grievances Redressal Policy dated 30.11.2019, is quashed and
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*32* 1nob wp1884o24 spk
clause 6(d) stands struck down. As such, any further policies
or circulars issued by the bank on the basis of the said clause,
would be rendered inoperable.
32. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
33. No order as to costs.
[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]
SMS
