Bombay High Court
National Organisation Of Bank Workers' ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: [1992(65)FLR164], (1993)IILLJ537BOM
JUDGMENT H.D. Patel, J.
1. The petitioner claiming to be a Federation of Registered Trade Unions working in various Nationalised and Non-Nationalised Banks in India has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated January 21, 1992, in Writ Petition No. 1834 of 1986.
2. The second respondent is an Association of Banks and has been co-ordinating the activities of the member Banks in relation to matters of common interest and represents the member Banks at National level in labour matters. It is claimed by the appellant that the second respondent used to negotiate with them as well as other Federation of Trade Unions. The third tripartite settlement is signed by the second respondent on behalf of its member Banks in the year 1979. Despite the settlement, some issues remained to be resolved and such issues were referred for adjudication by arbitrators. The arbitrators, however, renounced the reference and, therefore the appellant, the second respondent and other federations agreed to settle the residual issues themselves by private negotiations. One of the issues involved was relating to computerisation and mechanisation in the Banking Industry. In the meanwhile, fresh charter of demands were submitted to second respondent for which there was no response. Instead the second respondent continued to discuss the residual issues with the Federation other than the appellant. Upon arriving at an arrangement, the appellant Federation was called upon to concur with the said arrangement in case they desired to participate in the discussions to be held for the fresh charter of demands. Since the appellant was not in a position to concur, the issue being sensitive, it appears that the second respondent executed and signed the settlement with other Federation of trade unions on September 8, 1983. The exclusion of the appellant Federation in the matter of negotiations was claimed to be an unfair labour practice being in gross violation of their rights and its member unions.
3. It is alleged that again in September, 1984 there were strong rumours about the second respondent entering into an agreement with other federation to the exclusion of the appellant. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, was moved for arranging a meeting with the second respondent. On September 17, 1984 the second respondent signed the Fourth Bipartite Settlement without inviting the petitioner to negotiate and discuss the demands. In response to the notice issued, the second respondent appeared before the Chief Labour Commissioner and filed their reply. The conciliation having failed, a failure report was submitted by the Authority to the Government. By a communication dated July 10, 1986, the first respondent informed the appellant that the Government has refused to make the reference because the second respondent was not an employer and hence no valid industrial dispute could be raised against them under the Industrial Disputes Act. This communication was challenged by the appellant Federation before this Court in a writ petition. A direction was claimed that the first respondent be directed was claimed that the first respondent be directed to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication. The learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the order of the first respondent and dismissed the writ petition vide order impugned in this appeal.
4. An interesting question does arise in this appeal for determination and that question is, whether thee act of the second respondent in not negotiating with the appellant Federation could amount to unfair labour practice under Section 25-T of the Industrial Disputes Act. But before this question could be decided, it is necessary to determine whether refusal by the second respondent to negotiate with the appellant is justified ? In this context what is to be examined is whether the second respondent is an employer falling within the definition of the word "employer" under the Industrial Disputes Act. Similarly it is equally necessary to find out the locus of the appellant to raise a dispute in its capacity as a federation of trade unions on behalf of the employees of the Bank. It has come to light during arguments that the appellant Federation is not a registered body under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. It is hence not a 'Trade Union' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the said Act. The definition includes any federation of two or more unions. In the absence of it being a registered body, the appellant is incompetent to raise or make any demand for and on behalf of the employees so as to fall within the scope and ambit of the "industrial dispute" as defined under Section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If the appellant is not in a position to raise an 'industrial dispute', it has no locus standi to seek the privilege of negotiating those demands, which is the privilege of only registered trade unions or a group of workmen under the Industrial Dispute Act. The appellant, admittedly, not being a registered trade union is not a juristic person and hence also incompetent to file the writ petition. In the view which we have taken, we do not feel that it is necessary to decide whether the act of unfair labour practice is an Industrial dispute and whether the second respondent is an employer for enabling the appellant to raise an industrial dispute against them. All the points are left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
5. In view of the discussions above we find that the appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs.