Punjab-Haryana High Court
All India Allahabad Bank Employees ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 October, 2000
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill
JUDGMENT S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. By this writ petition the association of the workmen is challenging an order dated 20.7.1998 (copy annexure P/5) vide which the Government (respondent No. 1) had declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. The order annexure P/5 being short is reproduced as under:
"I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. 7 (128) 96 dated 30.5.1997 from the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (c), Chandigarh received in this Ministry on 1.7.1997 on the above subject and to say that prima facie this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for the following reasons:
Leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The workman in question reported to be on leave without any authority. Hence, on the principle of no work no pay, denial of pay etc. for the same period is in accordance with law. Hence no ID subsists."
2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the action of respondent No. 1 in not referring the dispute to the Labour Court is neither legal nor proper. Counsel for respondent-bank argued that there was no referable matter to the Labour Court and respondent No. 1 was justified in not referring the dispute to the Labour Court.
3. Mr. V.S. Chawla, workman, for whom the reference is sought to be made was working as Clerk in the respondent-Bank at Yamunanagar and was holding the post of Convener of the Union. Respondent No. 3 made an attempt to transfer him from Yamuna Nagar to some other far away place. Consequently, a strike notice was given by the petitioner. Thereafter, in pursuance of the notice, the Assistant Labour Commissioner directed the respondent-Bank not to change the service conditions of the workman (Shri V.S. Chawla). Respondent No. 2 informed respondent No. 1 regarding the failure of conciliation proceedings between the parties. The dispute was regarding payment of salary for the period 1.7.1995 to 2.11.1995 and to consider this period to be on duty. Case of the respondent-Bank is that this is a case of wilful absence from duty and the Bank is not liable to pay the amount because of principle of "no work no pay". It is the further contention of the respondent-Bank that the workman was relieved on 1.7.1995 for joining his duties in Rasulpur Branch which was also situated in District Yamuna Nagar itself but he delayed his joining at Rasulpur anS intimated vide two applications during this period for cancellation of leave. Respondent-bank has relied on letter annexure R-3/1 by which the workman has stated that his case may be closed. This letter is dated 4.12.1995 and is reproduced as under:
"The case before the ALC Rohtak was filed on my behalf, since I have the grievances against the bank. Since my request for transfer back to Yamunanagar has been accepted by you, I hereby declare that I am not interested to pursue my grievance/petition with ALC, Rohtak any more and the case may be considered as closed by the wor-
thy ALC Rohtak also."
4. The petitioner contends that a letter was written by the workman and a dispute was also raised regarding salary for the period 1.7.1995 to 2.11.1995 and that the dispute was not in existence when the said letter was written. The dispute regarding salary is product of the earlier dispute. It seems that the disputes regarding transfer and salary are mixed up by respondent No. 1. The appropriate Government can go into the merits of the dispute prima facie for the purpose of finding out whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended and whether the Government should make a reference or not but in doing so, the appropriate Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis. This principle has been laid down in various cases. One of them is the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. State of Haryana and another, 1998(2) RSJ 26 : 1998(2) SCT 1 (P&H)(DB). It is a decision of the Full Bench of this Court.
5. What respondent No. 1 has done by the impugned letter is that he has relied on the principle of "no work no pay". By this respondent No. 1 has accepted that the workman has not worked voluntarily. There is no basis for the same.
6. Counsel for the respondent-bank argued that there was no resolution of the Union to go further in the case of the workman. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on annexure P-1 which is a resolution. It is dated 30.9.1999 to file and signing the writ petition against the impugned order. Counsel for the respondent-bank argued that annexure P/1 does not show which meeting passed the resolution. However, it is stated in annexure P/l that the resolution was passed in the meeting held on 30.9.1999 at Calcutta. Therefore, the technical objection raised by respondent-bank cannot survive.
7. As a result, we find that the impugned order dated 20.7.1998 cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, quashed. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 for taking decision in accordance with law.
8. Order accordingly.