Karnataka High Court
Kotak Mahindra Bank Employess Union (R) vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7836
WP No. 17159 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 17159 OF 2016 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (R)
KRANTHI, NO.86/5, SHELL HOUSE,
2ND FLOOR, J.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 002
REP BY GENERAL SECRETARY
(NOTE : BEFORE THE MERGER
OF THE SAID KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK
WITH ING VYSYA BANK,
IT WAS ALL INDIA ING VYSYA
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION(R)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V.R DATAR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by A
K 1. UNION OF INDIA
CHANDRIKA
Location: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
HIGH SHRAM MANTRALYA
COURT OF NEW DELHI - 110 001
KARNATAKA
REP BY SECRETARY
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK TLD.
HAVING THEIR REGD. OFFICE AT
PLOT NOT C-27,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
C-27, G BLOCK BANDRA EAST,
MUMBAI - 400 051
HAVING THEIR LOCAL OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7836
WP No. 17159 of 2016
M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001
(NOTE: BEFORE ITS MERGER WITH
THE AFOREMENTIONED KOTAK MAHINDRA
BANK IT WAS ING VYSYA BANK LTD)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1;
SMT.DESIREE M.PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VIVEK HOLLA,
ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 AND 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE R-1 AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND QUASH
ITS ORDER DTD.28.10.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-Z TO THE PETITION & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-Kotak Mahindra Bank Employees'
Union (R) (for short "the Union") is before this Court,
questioning the correctness or otherwise of letter bearing
No.7(2)2015-b3 dated 28.10.2015 whereunder the
petitioner has been informed that refusal of the
management to negotiate with the elected General
Secretary of the petitioner is not within the purview of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "1947 Act") as it is
NC: 2024:KHC:7836
statutory matter under Section 22 of Trade Unions Act,
1926 (for short "1926 Act") and for certain other
directions.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.V.R.Datar for petitioner
and learned counsel Smt.Desiree M.Pais for Sri.Vivek
Holla, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Shanthi
Bhushan, learned DSG-I for respondent No.1. Perused the
writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Datar
contended that the Appropriate Authority could not have
refused to refer the dispute arising from the refusal of the
respondent-Management to negotiate with Petitioner-
Employees' Union represented by its elected General
Secretary. Learned counsel would submit that though the
elected General Secretary is a retired employee, he has
every right to represent the Union and participate in the
negotiations with the respondent-Management. Refusal by
the Management to negotiate with the office bearer i.e.,
NC: 2024:KHC:7836
General Secretary, a retired employee would amount to a
dispute and the Appropriate Authority ought to have made
reference under 1947 Act. It is submitted that the letter
addressed is wholly erroneous and opposed to the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as well as Trade
Unions Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support
of his contention would place reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1979(1) LLJ 1 in the
case of AVON SERVICES (PRODUCTION) AGENCIES
v/s INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL and another judgment
reported in AIR 1998 SC 554 in the case of
P.VIRUDHACHALAM AND OTHERS v/s THE
MANAGEMENT OF LOTUS MILLS AND ANOTHER.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents inviting attention of this Court to the
proceedings at Annexure-X would submit that the
Management refused to negotiate with the General
Secretary of the petitioner-Union only on the ground that
he is a retired official. Further it is submitted that, as on
NC: 2024:KHC:7836
that date, the General Secretary, Sri.K.J.Ramakrishna
Reddy is no more and as such, the writ petition would no
more survive for consideration.
5. Learned counsel Sri.Datar would not dispute the
death of Sri.Ramakrishna Reddy, retired employee who
was then General Secretary of the petitioner-Union.
6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and
on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view
that the present writ petition would no more survive for
consideration and cause of action would not survive, since
the General Secretary, retired employee Sri.Ramakrishna
Reddy is no more and died during the pendency of the writ
petition. The only reason for refusal by the Management
to negotiate with the Union was that the Union was
represented by the General Secretary, a retired employee.
Since the General Secretary who represents the Union as
on that date is dead, it is open for the petitioner-Union to
seek negotiation by the present General Secretary of the
NC: 2024:KHC:7836
petitioner-Union. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
All contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MPK
CT:JR
