Madras High Court
Indian Overseas Bank Award Staff vs Indian Overseas Bank on 4 December, 2012
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:04.12.2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN WRIT PETITION No.26219 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 Indian Overseas Bank Award Staff and Officer SC/ST Welfare Association rep.by its General Secretary Mr.P.Ganesan .. Petitioner vs. 1. Indian Overseas Bank rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director Central Office No.762, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002. 2. All India SC/ST Association of Indian Overseas Bank Employees No.17, 2nd Main Road Kakkan Nagar Adambakkam Chennai 600 088. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-Bank not to unilaterally treat the petitioner association as a non-representative association without prior notice and without ascertainment of majority in a manner known to law and invite the petitioner association of SC/ST employees for the quarterly meeting after ascertainment of the majority in a manner known to law. For petitioner : Mr.V.Prakash Senior counsel for Mr.K.Sudalaikannu For respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for R1 Mr.R.Sankara Subbu for R2 ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus to direct the respondent-Bank not to unilaterally treat the petitioner association as a non-representative association without prior notice and without ascertainment of majority in a manner known to law and invite the petitioner association of SC/ST employees for the quarterly meeting after ascertainment of the majority.
2. The petitioner is the Indian Overseas Bank Award Staff and Officer SC/ST Welfare Association and the same represents the SC & ST employees working in the Indian Overseas Bank. It was the only association till the second respondent, viz., The All India SC/ST Association of Indian Overseas Bank Employees was formed in August 2012. The petitioner association was called for the quarterly meeting with the Chief Executive as per the brochure on Reservation for Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes employees in public sector banks. The petitioner association was invited to attend the last quarterly meeting, which was held on 19.06.2012. While so, the second respondent-association was called to attend the next quarterly meeting on 27.09.2012. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the aforesaid prayer. It is also prayed that a direction may be issued to the first respondent-Bank to invite the petitioner association also for the quarterly meeting.
3. The first respondent filed the counter affidavit refuting the allegations. The first respondent has stated that the second respondent association came to be formed in August 2012. The check off system has been in vogue in the first respondent bank. The writ petitioner is also enjoying the same facility. While the writ petitioner has 651 members, the second respondent association has 1093 members based on the deductions towards subscription from their salary. Hence, when the quarterly meeting that was scheduled to be held on 27.09.2012 based on the brochure, the second respondent-association was called to attend the same as it had majority of members as on the said date.
4. While admitting the writ petition, this court granted interim injunction on 26.09.2012 restraining the first respondent-Bank from conducting or proceeding with any quarterly meeting without inviting the petitioner association. Immediately, the second respondent association filed M.P.No.2 of 2012 to vacate the interim injunction. Thereafter, the injunction was modified directing the first respondent bank to invite the writ petitioner also for the quarterly meeting.
5. The second respondent-association filed an affidavit stating that it commands the majority of the members and therefore, the second respondent is entitled to attend the quarterly meeting as per the brochure.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The relevant clause in the Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes in posts/services in Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions is extracted here under for ready reference:
"Holding meetings with the representatives of SC/ST Employees 13.6(ii) The Bank's Chief Executive may hold quarterly meetings with Association which enjoys the majority following of employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in case there are more than one such Association in any Bank."
8. It is not in dispute that the subscription of the petitioner association as well as the second respondent-association is collected by way of check-off system. Based on the authorisation letters given by individual employees [staff and officer], the deduction of subscription is made by the first respondent-bank and the same is remitted to the writ petitioner association or the second respondent- association as the case may be.
9. In the writ petition no serious allegations were made except stating that the first respondent bank had ascertained the majority without issuing notice to the petitioner-association and hearing them. According to the petitioner-association they represent the majority of SC & ST employees in the Indian Overseas Bank. The petitioner heavily relied on the letter dated 20.09.2012 written by the Chairman and the Managing Director of the first respondent- Bank to the General Secretary of the writ petitioner association. In the said letter, the Chairman and the Managing Director expressed his inability to participate in the first All India Conference of Indian Overseas Bank Award Staff and Officer's SC/ST Welfare Association at Baroda on 26.08.2012, even though he earlier agreed to participate in the conference that was organised by the writ petitioner-association. In the said letter, it was stated that as on 19.06.2012, the petitioner association was the only existing association hence the same was called for the quarterly meeting that was held on 19.06.2012. I am of the view that the said letter in no way support the case of the petitioner association.
10. It is not in dispute that as on 19.06.2012, the second respondent was not in existence. The second respondent came into existence only in August 2012 and thereafter the second respondent on its own had 1093 members while the writ petitioner has only 651 members. The relevant clause in the brochure, viz, 13.6(ii) makes it clear that if there are more than one association, the majority association will be called to participate in the quarterly meeting as per the subscription effected. Pursuant to the authorisation letters given in favour of the second respondent-association, it became the majority association and therefore, the second respondent-association was called to attend the quarterly meeting that was to be held on 27.09.2012.
11. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-association.
12. Membership details are ascertained based on the authorisation letters given by the employees [staff and officer] and the subscriptions deducted from their salary by the first respondent-Bank. The writ petitioner-association is also enjoying the same check-off facility system. In such a case, I am not able to understand as to how the petitioner association would pray for the issuance of notice to decide the majority membership when the same is determined by check off system and which is also accepted by the writ petitioner association themselves. However, an additional affidavit dated 03.12.2012 is filed by the writ petitioner-association today before this court making allegations that the first respondent-Bank colluding with the second respondent-association and received bogus authorisation letters.
13. I am not able to appreciate the averments in the additional affidavit. No employees whose salaries were deducted for payment of subscription to the second respondent association have come forward to state that the deductions were made contrary to their wishes. The petitioner association also filed the authorisation letters given by the employees/officers of the Indian Overseas Bank in favour of the second respondent association. All these letters bear the signature of the employees/officers.
14. The learned senior counsel would argue that in some of the authorisation letters, there are no rubber stamps affixed. It is not the case of the petitioner association that the employees whose subscription were deducted for the second respondent-association objected for the same.
15. The learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 28.01.2011 in W.P.(C) 4299 of 2010 [Air Corporation Employees Union vs. Air India Limited].
16. In the cited judgment, a trade union was accorded recognition by the Air India limited for a long time and the same was withdrawn based on serious allegations. When the same was questioned before the Delhi High Court, the learned Judge had held that when the recognition is withdrawn based on certain allegations, as against a trade union, it should be given an opportunity of being heard before any adverse decision was taken against them.
17. In my considered view, the said judgment is totally distinguishable as the facts involved in the said case are entirely different from the case on hand.
18. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
vj2 To The Chairman and Managing Director Indian Overseas Bank Central Office No.762, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002