Bombay High Court
Central Bank Employees Union & Others vs Central Bank Of India & Others on 14 June, 1994
Author: S.H. Kapadia
Bench: S.H. Kapadia
JUDGMENT
S.H. Kapadia J.
1. By this writ petition, the Central Bank Employees Union seeks to challenge the validity of the Agreement dated 16th February 1990 as well as Circular dated 12th March, 1990 on the ground that the Stenographers are entitled to have their choice to opt either for the general steam or for the post of Steno-Officers without requiring them to give any irrevocable option and to allow the said stenographers to exercise their choice for any of the above stream without any restriction and without insisting on an irrevocable option.
2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition lie within a very narrow compass.
(a) On 20th December 1975, Respondent No. 2 discussed the promotion policy with the Management and a settlement was arrived at. Under the said settlement, it was interalia provided vide clause 3.1 that stenographers under clerical cadre on completion of six years continuous service shall be required to appear for speed test. Under clause 3.6, Steno-Officers were also eligible for transfer to the operational side (General stream), on completion of five years continuous service. Under the said clause 3.6, it is further laid down that Steno Officers who complete five years continuous service shall also be eligible to appear for written test for appointment of 'C' Category Branch Manager.
(b) The said settlement was followed by another settlement between Management and Respondent No. 2 which is a majority Union dated 18th August, 1981. The said settlement is known as Decompartmentalisation settlement. The said settlement was circulated vide a Circular dated 3rd November, 1981. By the said Decompartmentalisation Settlement dated 18th August, 1981 the stenos were brought into mainstream. However, the Bank realised that some employees were required for the post of Steno-Officers. Therefore, the Bank opened an additional avenue of promotion for the stenographers by settlement dated 16th February 1990 which is an impugned settlement, whereby stenos from the mainstream could opt for the specialised category/cadre of stenos seeking of avenues of promotion as Steno Officer. However, 1990 settlement did not change the basis policy viz. that the Stenos after decompartmentalisation in 1981 continued to remain in the main stream. The impugned settlement of 1990 provided an additional avenue only to those stenos who wanted to opt once again for specialised cadre and they were asked to opt for the specialist cadre by a given date. Moreover, as mentioned hereinabove, Officers in the Stenographers grade were entitled to go once again to the mainstream under clause 15.2 of the promotion policy of the Officers. Clause 15.2 therefore also provided adequate safeguard with regard to future promotion of stenos in the Officer cadre.
Clause 15.2 reads as follows :-
"15.2. All specialist officers will be eligible to join the mainstream of banking on completion of 5 years of service reckoned from the date of their initial appointment as specialist. On their becoming so eligible, the specialist officer it he so desires, may apply to the Bank for joining the mainstream. The Bank will take a decision after interviewing the candidate by a Committee. The decision will be on the basis of merits of the candidates and no right will be vested in the specialist officer for joining the mainstream. Those who are selected to join the mainstream will be fitted in such scale and at such stage in the scale as the Management may, in its discretion, decide."
In the above circumstances, stenographers were free to either continue in the mainstream or to opt for the specialised category.
(c) In the above circumstances, the Union has filed the present writ petition challenging validity of the Settlement of 1990.
3. Mr. Nargolkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the present case the settlement of 1990 was arbitrary. He submitted that the stenos were not in a position to judge as to when the vacancy in the steno officers would arise and therefore it was very difficult for the stenos to exercise their option. Mr. Nargolkar further submitted that the option which was given to the stenos should have been unrestricted. He further submitted that in no other category the employees were put to option. In the above circumstances, it was submitted that the said settlement was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rele, learned Counsel appearing for the Bank, submitted that the above settlement of 1990 which is the impugned settlement was between the Bank on the once hand and the majority union on the other hand. He submits that all the facts and circumstances of the case have been duly considered by the Union. Mr. Rele further submitted that in the present case initially stenographers under the first agreement were categorised in the special category. This was in 1975. In 1981, they were put in the general stream. However, by 1990, the management realised that steno officers post required vacancy to be filled in and therefore 1990 settlement came to be entered into with the majority union by which an additional avenue was provided to the stenographers either to opt for specialist category or remain in the General category, Mr. Rele also pointed out that even steno officers, who belong to specialist category were after lapse of requisite qualifying period entitled to become officers in the general stream. He and other benefits there was no disparity and in the circumstance no intervention is called for.
4. I find considerable merits in the contention of Mr. Rele, appearing on behalf of the Bank. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the impugned settlement is between the Bank and the majority Union. Secondly, it is well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court of India that even it the settlement hurts some persons the totality is required to be seen and if the settlement is in the larger interest of the employees and in pursuance of the managerial function, then the said settlement should not be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thirdly, in the present case, on facts, I am informed that approximately 40 stenos opted for the steno officers category. Only 5 stenos did not opt for the said steno officers category. Lastly the sequence of events indicate that the impugned settlement merely provided an additional avenue whereby stenos in the mainstream were given an opportunity, if they so desire, to opt for the steno officers post by a particular date. This was in view of the fact that the post of steno officers was created prior to 1990 and since vacancies arose in the said category an additional option was given by the Bank to the stenos to join by a particular date, if they so desire, from the general category to the specialist category. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the Agreement was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
5. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.