Madras High Court
The Assistant General Manager vs The Presiding Officer on 16 August, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P. No. 3939 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. No. 3939 of 2017
and
W.M.P. No. 4027 of 2017
The Assistant General Manager,
Canara Bank,Circle Office,
No.524, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 006. … Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court,
Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The General Secretary,
Canara Bank Staff Union,
27, V.V.Koil Street,
Vellala Teyanampet,
Chennai – 600 086. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first
respondent in I.D.No.33 of 2015 and quash its award dated 22.07.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ragananthan
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.,
For R1 : Labour Court
For R2 : Mr.Balan Haridas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P. No. 3939 of 2017
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed against the award dated 22.07.2016 in I.D.No.33 of 2015.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the Cheque Truncation System (CTS) was introduced in the Banking Operations for clearance of cheques in a timely manner by the National Payment of Corporation of India (NPCI). While the outward cheques will be transmitted periodically during the course of the day upto 7.30 PM, inward cheques will be received only between 9 PM and 9.30 PM. The Officer receiving the inward cheques will have to verify the account number and payees name and enter the same in the system and it should be uploaded to the Core Banking System (CBS) before commencement of the business hours in the next day morning.
2. The CTS in the petitioner bank was established in 3 centres viz. Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi. The Chennai Centre covers Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal and Assam. There are 60,000 cheques received approximately in a day at Chennai Centre and they have to be processed between 9 PM and 5AM in working day. Currently, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8 W.P. No. 3939 of 2017 CTS operations are done only by the direct employees on the rolls of the Bank. When the system was introduced, all the employees were asked to opt for the same. Only 17 Clerical staff opted and on an average 12 turned up. In the 8 th Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005, a clause was inserted wherein the Banks may outsource IT and its related activities in respect of specialized area where inhouse capability is not available. The RBI vide its circular dated 03.11.2006 clarified that Banks can outsource activities in respect of IT and its related activities. The Petitioner implemented the outsourcing activity in its centres. However, since the 3rd Respondent opposed the outsourcing activities, the Petitioner discontinued the exercise. An Industrial Dispute was raised and on failure of conciliation by order dated 09.03.2015, the Government of India referred the dispute before the 1st Respondent and the same was numbered as ID No.33 of 2015. The 1st Respondent passed an award. Section 9A of the ID Act is attracted and there is a change in the service condition and held that the petitioner shall not outsource the function including the data capture work relating to clearing instrument at CTS Grid, Chennai to outsiders. Challenging the said award, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the core banking activities are not outsourced and what is outsourced is only data entry https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8 W.P. No. 3939 of 2017 operations. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that time is the essence of the entire process and when the banking employees are not able to cope up with the work due to heavy workload, the bank, on the basis of the circular of the Reserve Bank of India could outsource the work, with detrimental to the employees in the core banking activity. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even otherwise, the majority union, had partaken in the Board of Directors meeting and had agreed to outsource the activity and the respondents, being the minority union, cannot scuttle the process, by filing the present dispute. The Tribunal, without considering the issue, adverting to Section 9-A of the ID Act has set aside the order of the petitioner to outsource the services, which is wholly misconceived. When the workmen of the bank are in no way affected with the adoption of the new system, the order of the Tribunal is wholly perverse, as it reveals total non-application of mind to the materials placed before it.
4. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8694 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court having accepted that no restriction is placed on the Information Technology system by the Reserve Bank of India, the present case would https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8 W.P. No. 3939 of 2017 squarely fall within the said decision and, therefore, the present order deserves interference.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that insofar as change in working conditions are concerned, necessarily the Management has to cause notice to the workmen u/s 9-A of the ID Act and in the present case, no notice having been given, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the said order and, therefore, no interference is warranted with the same.
6. This Court paid its careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record, as also the decision relied on by the petitioner.
7. In the case on hand, what is sought to be introduced by the petitioner is a data entry system to clear the work, that is getting stagnated, as the present work force is not able to discharge the same. In this regard, the Reserve Bank of India had issued a circular of which clause 31 (h) and 31 (m) prescribes that outsourcing is made permissible in the Information Technology sector. Only on account of the same, the petitioner had outsourced the work of data entry. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8 W.P. No. 3939 of 2017
8. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that due to outsourcing the workmen are affected. What is provided for u/s 9-A is that where a proposed change in the conditions of service is likely to affect the workmen, then necessarily a notice, as contemplated u/s 9-A (a) of the ID Act is mandatory. However, in the case on hand, the outsourcing of the data entry work does not in any way cause any change in the conditions of service of the workmen.
9. In this regard, similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8694 of 2022 and the Apex Court held as under :-
"Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the clauses 31(h) and 31(n) of the said Bi-partite Settlement Agreement, we are of the opinion that it will be a misinterpretation and/or misreading of the clauses 31(h) and 31(m) of the said Bi- Partite Settlement Agreement to read that only with respect to information technology the outsourcing is permissible.
It will be reading too much in clauses 31(h) and 31(m) to restrict the outsourcing to the information technology department only.
In any case so far as the Armed Guards are concerned when the Bank had taken a policy decision to engage the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8 W.P. No. 3939 of 2017 Armed Guards by outsourcing, it is always permissible for them to do so. Only in a case where the existing Armed Guards are affected by way of termination etc., then and then only the Union or the concerned Armed Guards can make a grievance because as per clauses 31(h) and 31(m), there shall be no retrenchment on account of computerisation.''
10. The sum and substance of the order is that it is always permissible to take a policy decision to adopt a new method, but it should not affect the workmen by way or retrenchment or otherwise and so long as it is not affecting the workmen, no grievance can be expressed by the workmen for the same. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to outsource IT and its related activities in respect of specialized area where in-house capability is not available.
11. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
16.08.2023 Rli Index: Yes/No NCS : Yes/No To The Presiding Officer, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8 W.P. No. 3939 of 2017 Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai – 600 006.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Rli W.P. No. 3939 of 2017 16.08.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8