Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Andhra Bank Officers Union vs Andhra Bank And Ors. on 15 July, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(5)ALT54, (1998)ILLJ28AP
JUDGMENT
1. The controversy between parties is in a very narrow compass in this Writ Petition. The question regarding recognition of trade union of Officers of a bank is at stake. A declaration is sought by Petitioner-Union that the action of the respondent (Andhra Bank) in not following the procedure contemplated in the Schedule appended to the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1980 (for short the 'Scheme') for recognition of majority union of Officers is ultra vires and illegal. A further direction is sought to be issued to the 3rd respondent to conduct verification for the purpose of recognition of the majority status of Officers' union.
2. The 4th respondent (All India Andhra Bank Officers Federation) is strenuously contesting the claims advanced by the petitioner-Union as regards the petitioner's eligibility for recognition. After narrating the requirements of the Scheme as regards the constitution of Board of Directors as contemplated by the Schedule annexed to the Scheme, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Mr. B. Nalini Kumar submitted that the Board of Directors of the bank, among other members, was required to take one representative from workmen and one representative from non-workmen, i.e., the Officers working in the 1st respondent-Bank and that the present Writ petition was concerned with the non-workmen and the procedure to be adopted for recognising majority union of Officers. The circular dated November 6, 1992 issued by the 1st respondent-Bank in this regard was staunchly pressed into service. A copy of the said Circular dated November 6, 1992 is produced by the petitioner along with the Writ Petition. The circular expresses the concern of the Management regarding the rival claims of majority status and lays down the procedure for identifying the majority status and other related points as follows :-
"1. The union that will have the largest membership as per the cheek-off system, as on January 31, 1993 will be identified as the majority union, in both the categories.
2. The ZLC/JCC meetings at Zonal/Regional level will be held with the local representatives nominated by the majority union.
3. The union claiming majority must have been in existence for at least one year after registration.
4. The membership of the union should cover at least 15% of the employees in the Bank.
5. When the union is recognised, there will be no change in its position for a period of 2 years from the date of according recognition, unless :
(a) the union is wound up; or
(b) the union is derecognised for any acts detrimental to the bank's interest".
3. It is further pointed out by the 4th respondent that there was a series of litigations between the various unions of Officers (to which 4th respondent was not a party). In those Writ Petitions consent orders were passed by the High Court for verification of majority union by Chief Commissioner of Labour under the procedure laid down by the Code of Discipline., However, the said orders, according to the 4th respondent, had no bearing as those orders had not taken into consideration the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act or the applicability of Code of Discipline vis-a-vis the Officers and in fact in W.P. No. 402/1986 dated December 1, 1986, the High Court categorically held that the Code of Discipline wag not applicable to Officers as they were not workmen. A direction was also issued under the said Writ Petition to the Chief Labour Commissioner to verify respective claims of various Officers' unions.
4. It is also contended by the 4th respondent that they filed W.P. No. 2615/1991 seeking direction to the bank to conduct verification for the purpose of deciding majority character of the 4th respondent. In W.P.M.P. No. 3195/1991 and in W.P. No. 2615/1991, an interim order was passed staying the panel of three officers prepared by the Management to be nominated on the Board of Directors on the ground that it was prepared without proper verification. Aggrieved by the said order, Writ Appeals Nos. 809/1991 and 818/1991 were filed by the present petitioner-Union and the Management of the Bank respectively. The appeals were partly allowed by an order dated August 14, 1991 permitting the bank to send the panel of three names for selection by the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and that one out of those three be nominated as a Director representing non-workmen. The Division Bench also held that in view of the dispute with regard to the majority character claimed by the present petitioner-Union "that in the event of this respondent establishing their claim it would be open to the Central Government to modify the Board of Directors in particular relating to the Directors representing non-workmen consistent with the order relating to recognition of this respondent".
5. It was pursuant to this order passed in Writ Appeals that the Management issued a letter dated November 6, 1992 setting out the guidelines for recognition of officers' Union introducing a method for determining majority status by check-off system. The General Secretary of the Petitioner-Union objected to the same by its letter dated February 7, 1993. On the other hand, he continued on the Board of Directors on the ground that he represented the majority union. Thereafter on March 2, 1993, the Management recognised the present petitioner-Union as a majority union for a period of two years ending on January 31, 1995 by following the procedure of 'check-off' system and also by following the guidelines laid down in the letter dated November 6, 1992. The objection taken by the petitioner-Union was answered by the Management on September 16, 1995 stating that the contentions raised by the petitioner-Union in the said letter were not tenable and that the Circular dated November 6, 1992 Was in order. But the petitioner-Union did not choose to challenge the same till today.
6. The 4th respondent thereafter claims in its affidavit that their Union gained majority by the month of December, 1996 itself. The majority character, according to the 4th respondent, had to be determined as on January 31, biannually and admittedly on January 31, 1997, the petitioner-Union had no majority character and, therefore, they were entitled to secure recognition from the Management. The petitioner-Union, according to the 4th respondent, accepted the cheek-off facility as evident from their letters dated December 5, 1989 and December 18/19, 1989 issued by the Management. However, the verification of the majority character of Officers' was not done under any statute or any rule framed under a statute and therefore, the Writ Petition was not maintainable, according to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent emphasised that all the nationalised banks in the country were following 'check-off system which stood the test of time.
7. The 4th respondent repeated and reiterated that the Schedule to the Scheme applied only to workmen and not to officers who were not governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the Code of Discipline and, therefore, the procedure appended to the scheme had no application in the case of officers and that the Chief Labour Commissioner had no role to play in the verification of membership.
8. The 4th respondent, thus, challenges the procedure prevailing since 1993 and denies the authority of the Chief Labour Commissioner to undertake the job of verification of membership. But, inspite of the same, according to the 4th respondent, the petitioner-Union asserted the necessity of complying with the procedure stated above for verification of membership with a malafide intention of protracting the recognition of the 4th respondent.
9. The earlier order, according to the 4th respondent, passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.A. No.808/1991 categorically observed that on the 4th respondent establishing its majority it would be at liberty to move the Central Government to modify the Board of Directors in particular relating to the Director representing non-workmen. It was also contended by the 4th respondent that the present representative of the petitioner's Union was appointed for a period of three years commencing from November 2, 1992 and his term had expired in the year 1995 itself and in spite of the same he was continuing on the Board of Directors without any authority and asserts its submission that the Circular dated November 6, 1992 was in order and the question of nullifying the Scheme did not arise as the same had no application to Officers. Even Workmen's union's majority status and welfare association's majority status were determined and recognised by and under the Circular dated November 6, 1992, according to the 4th respondent and for all these reasons, the Chief Commissioner of Labour had no role to play in the verification of majority character of Officers' Union.
10. I am afraid from the above submissions the prima facie case does not appear to be in favour of the 4th respondent. Two factors however clearly emerge that 'verification' is a matter of exclusive jurisdiction of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) under the Scheme and the Management of the bank has no role to play in 'verification' as contemplated by the Scheme framed under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980) (for short 'the Act'). Secondly, the term 'cheek-off' is not to be construed as meaning that it is the process of verifying the largest membership and determining the majority. The Bank appears to be attributing this meaning to the term 'cheek-off in its letter dated July 8, 1997, a copy of which was produced before the Court during the midst of arguments on this Writ Petition by stating that :
"..... based on the cheek-off figures, the All India Andhra Bank Officers' Federation, affiliated to AIBOC, has emerged as the Union with largest membership among the officer staff in the Bank, as on January 31, 1997. Accordingly, the All India Andhra Bank Officers' Federation is reconginsed as majority union for the purpose of bilateral negotiations, with effect from February 1, 1997, for a period of 2 years i.e., upto January 31, 1999."
The same meaning of the term 'cheek-off' was taken in bank's letter dated February 17, 1993 addressed to the Petitioner-Union by which the bank informed the petitioner that : "...... based on the cheek-off figures, the Andhra Bank Officers' Union has emerged as the union with largest membership among the officer staff in the Bank as on March 31, 1993."
The High Court of Madras in S. B. I. Union Officers' Assocn. Etc. v. S. B. I,. Union of India Etc. (1989-I-LLJ-554) made this position quite clear in Para 22 which is reproduced below :
"22 From the narration, consisting of various facts and rival arguments, given above, it is clear that the check-off facility extended by the Management of the Public Sector banks in some cases exclusively to the recognised union and in other cases to all registered unions, is not under the authority of any provision of law. Therefore, some public sector banks have extended this to all registered unions and other public sector banks have restricted this facility to recognised unions only."
The meaning of the term "check-off" is explained in Paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment as follows :-
"... 'Check-off' facility is one given to the individual employee on his voluntary written request and it will be in force till the said individual employee withdraws the same. The format used for granting the check-off facility reads as follows :-
"The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, .......
Dear Sir, Authorisation for deduction of Union subscription from the monthly salary and allowances.
---------------------------------------------------- I request you to deduct from my salary and allowances in respect of every month a sum of Rs. ....... (Rupees only) and credit the same to the current account of the ............ Union/Association at ........... of the Bank.
2. This authorization shall continue to be effective till I revoke the same. Yours faithfully, Name ............
Signature .........."
In the case before this Court, indeed nothing turns materially on the concept of the check-off facility but with a view to having a precise perspective and distinction between the concept of 'check-off' and 'verification', it is necessary that the above observations made by the Madras High Court be kept in view.
11. 'Verification', therefore, immediately falls for our consideration. This term has been defined in Clause 2(i) of the Scheme as follows :
"(i) 'Verification' with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means the verification by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in accordance with the procedure specified in the Schedule." Constitution of the Board of Directors is delineated under Clause 3 of the Scheme. Sub-clause (b)(i) thereof provides that one of the Directors to be appointed on the Board of Directors of the bank as contemplated by Clause 3 of the Scheme has to be from among the employees of the nationalised bank who are workmen, to be appointed by the Central Government from out of a panel of three such employees furnished to it by the representative Union, within a date to be specified by the Central Government, which date shall not be more than six weeks from the date of the communication made by the Central Government requiring the representative Union to furnish the panel of names. In the proviso to the said clause, it is laid down that where the Central Government is of the opinion that owing to the delay which is likely to occur in the verification and certification of any Union or Federation as a representative Union, it is necessary in the interests of the nationalised bank so to do, it may appoint any employee of the nationalised bank, who is a workman, to be a Director of the Bank.
12. The procedure for 'verification' of membership of Unions operating in the nationalised banks is set out in the Schedule appended to the Scheme which inter alia provides for furnishing the names and addresses of all the registered unions operating in respective banks to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) by the Management of the nationalised banks. The particulars of unions received from the Management are required to be forwarded to the Regional Labour Commissioners concerned for checking up from the record of the Registers of Trade Unions whether the registration of these unions is still alive and whether there are other registered unions operating in the nationalised banks. The Regional Labour Commissioners are required to report to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) the result of their checking and on receipt of the information, the Unions are required to be called upon by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to furnish their membership claims in quintuplicate in Annexure I by a specified date.
13. Under Clause 2 of the Schedule appended to the Scheme, it is necessary that the registered unions should be allotted amongst Verification Officers for the purpose of physical verification of the membership and the Verification Officer shall be empowered to ask the unions in Annexure II to produce before him within 10 days from the date of receipt of the first notice, a list of the members, in triplicate, in different branches or offices (bank-wise) who had paid subscription for atleast three months during the period of six months preceding the date of reckoning which should be the first of month just preceding the month in which the Central Government addressed the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) to undertake the verification along with the other requirements as narrated in Clause 2 of the schedule.
14. Under Clause 3 of the said Schedule, if a union fails to produce the list of its members and other records, a second and final notice has to be sent by registered post acknowledgment due asking the union to produce them at the stipulated place and time within ten days from the date of receipt of the second and final notice. If the union again fails to produce them on the second occasion also, no further attempt should be made to verify its membership. However, in respect of the unions which submitted the list and records, the Verification Officer should examine them and ascertain the number of members who had paid three months subscription within the period of six months preceding the date of reckoning. It is further provided that this examination shall be 100% and shall be done in the presence of the office bearers or representatives of a rival union, and while doing the verification of membership, the Verification Officer is required to give due consideration to any representation which the union officials be making to him.
15. Under Clause 4 of the Schedule appended to the Scheme it is provided that the Verification Officer shall, thereafter, visit the Central or Registered Office of the nationalised bank and ensure that the names of members thus verified were included in the list or borne on the rolls of the management on the date of reckoning. All those members whose names are not borne on the rolls of the management on the date of reckoning shall be eliminated from the list. The Verification Officer is also required to obtain the particulars of the number of persons employed in the respective branches or offices of the bank on the date of reckoning at the time of his visit to the Central or Registered Office of the bank.
16. Under Clause 5 of the said Schedule it is provided that the Verification Officer shall, thereafter, intimate in writing to the unions or federation of unions concerned that the verified lists of their respective members in the bank are ready for inspection of the union representative at an appointed time and place. The union, at the same time, is required to be informed that after inspection of the verified list of members of the rival unions, they should send, in writing, their specific objections, if any, to the entries in these lists, within ten days of the date of inspection and it is required to be made clear to the unions that general and vague objections like inflated membership shall not be considered. The objectors should give the names of persons whose membership of a union is objected to and the reasons therefor.
17. Under Clause 6 of the Schedule appended to the Scheme, the objections received to from the unions are required to be verified by personal interrogation by the Verification Officer of the members on the basis of the systematic sampling system as narrated in sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of this Clause. The persons selected for personal interrogation should be called upon whether they were members of a particular union and whether they had paid subscriptions for three months within a period of six months from the date of reckoning and if so, the amount of subscription paid and the months for which it was paid. The Verification Officer is required to maintain a list of members personally interrogated giving their ticket numbers, names or Section where working and the result of personal interrogations.
18. It is further provided in Clause 7 of the Schedule that if the persons who, on interrogations, deny their membership of the union, are required to inform the Verification Officer that they were members of a rival union and the Verification Officer shall check their membership with the list of members and records of their union and adjust its list accordingly, that is to say, their names had to be added to the list of the rival union if they are not already included in it, and excluded, in the manner mentioned in the preceding clauses of the Schedule appended to the scheme.
19. It is significant to note that Clause 8 of the Schedule appended to the scheme clearly provides that while conducting personal verification as mentioned in Para 6 above, the Verification Officer shall not allow the representative of any union or management to be present.
20. Under Clause 9 of the Schedule, on completion of the verification work the Verification Officer is required to furnish a report to the Chief Labour Commissioner.
21. Therefore, the above provisions of the Schedule appended to the Scheme do not leave any scope for any doubt that the verification work has to be carried out by the Verification Officer under the instructions of the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and that the Management of the Bank has no role to play except to furnish the particulars of the Unions to the Regional Commissioner.
22. In the face of the above provisions of the Scheme as well as the Schedule annexed thereto it was not open for the Management of the 1st respondent bank to determine the majority status of the unions on the basis of the check-off figures and to grant recognition as majority union.
23. The next question which arises for the consideration of this Court from the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner union Mr. V. S. V. Rao and Mr. Nalini Kumar, learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent is whether over and above the 'workmen', Officers' Union was also required to be subject to the same verification for the purpose of granting recognition. It is already seen above that under Clause 3 of the Scheme relating to the constitution of Board, the procedure is prescribed as to how one Director from among the employees of nationalized bank who are workmen could be appointed by the Central Government. The same is stipulated in subclauses (a), (b),(i), (ii)(A),(B) & (C) &(iii) (a) to (b). As far as appointment from among the employees Of the nationalized bank who are not workmen is concerned, no such protracted procedure is prescribed. What all is required to be done in that case is provided under sub-clause (b)(iii)(c) of Clause 3 of the Scheme, as follows :
"(3)(b)(iii)(c) : one Director from among the employees of the nationalized bank, who are not workmen to be appointed by the Central Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank."
24. Further scrutiny, however, of the provisions of the Scheme reveals that the 'verification' which is required to be done in respect of the union of workmen, is also required to be followed in case of the employees of the nationalised bank who are not workmen. This proposition assumes credibility from the fact that in the proforma of Annexure I showing particulars of Unions includes Column No. 9 under which the membership in each branch or office of the bank of person other than the workmen are required to be furnished. Similarly in Annexure II annexed to the Scheme, verification of member ship of unions operating in the nationalised banks includes Clause (i) providing for a list of membership of a given union showing the name of each member, designation, branch or office where working and whether workman or other than workman employees. If this scrutiny was to be confined only to workmen and not to employees other than the workmen, column No. 9 would not have been included in Annexure I and Clause (i) in the Annexure II would not have contemplated furnishing a list of members by the bank even in respect of the persons other than the workman employee.
25. It would, therefore, be erroneous to say that an employee of a nationalised bank other than workman need not be subjected to verification procedure to be followed by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) as laid down in the first two clauses of the Schedule appended to the Scheme. But the question whether such employee other than the workman has to be considered in his individual capacity or in his capacity as the member of a Union of employees other than workmen, does not stand revealed unambiguously from the provisions of the Scheme and the Schedule appended thereto.
26. However, the discussion on Annexures I and II already made above leads us to believe that even the employees other than workmen were required to be subjected to the same 'verification' procedure as the workmen for the purpose of Clause 3(c) of the Scheme.
27. The appointment in case of Clause 3(c) of the Scheme is to be made by the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. For that reason also it is all the more necessary that the representative union of Officers (employees other than workmen) should be called upon to furnish the panel of names for appointment to be made by the Central Government as provided in Clause 3(c) of the Scheme.
28. Annexures I and II appended to the Scheme specifically provide for showing particulars of 'Union' functioning in the Bank in case of Annexure I, whereas in case of Annexure II a list of membership of the Union on the relevant date showing the particulars of each member, designation, branch or office where working and whether workman or other than workman employee, are required to be furnished for Verification of membership of union operating in the nationalised banks.
29. The above provisions also give us a very is strong reason to believe that 'Verification' as provided in the Scheme is inevitable even in case of the employees other than workmen and for that purpose the representative Union's role becomes quite apparent and relevant.
30. On examining the Scheme from this point of view, though it could not be assertively said that the Scheme mutatis mutandis applies to the employees of the bank other than the workmen, because sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 of the Scheme makes a very restricted provision for appointment of one Director from among the employees of nationalised bank who are not workmen, as against sub-clause (b) of Clause 3 of the Scheme as already seen above, the contextual scrutiny makes us believe that it is so.
31. The views expressed above gain support from the decision of the Supreme court in the case of All India Bank Officers' Confederation v. Union of India (1990-I-LLJ-352). The sum and substance of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 12 of the aforesaid ruling is as under :
"......... The object of the legislature is to give the Board a truly representative character so as to reflect the genuine interests of the various persons manning or dealing with the bank as an industry and a commercial enterprise. The purpose behind nationalisation of banks is to render the largest good to the largest number of people of this "Sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic". It is with this object in view that the Act has envisaged a truly representative Board of Directors chosen by election where election is feasible or by nomination where that mode is more appropriate. But the legislature has left it to the Central Government to specify by a scheme the manner in which the election or nomination is to be conducted, bearing in mind the true character and objective of the banking industry and its distinguishing features as a highly sensitive conunercial enterprise. Neither the election nor the nomination should be conducted in a manner unmindful of the distinctiveness of the banking industry. The legislature has no doubt left the choice of the mode of appointment of Directors with the Central Government, but that does not mean that the Central Government has a discretion to avoid election even where election is appropriate and feasible in respect of a particular category of persons. The very object of leaving the choice to the Central Government as to the mode, which is election or nomination, is to enable it to reasonably exercise its discretion in such a way as to give the best form of representation to every category of persons mentioned in the Act. It may be possible to appoint a representative of the depositors by election instead of nomination. It would be perfectly within the discretion of the Central Government to choose that mode. On the other hand, the depositors being not an organised body of persons, although easily identifiable, selection of their representative by nomination may be easier, more feasible and perhaps more appropriate for the puroard. Farmers, and artisans (3)(b) of Section 9 are best represented by nomination, they being difficult of identification and their connection with the bank being more remote than in the case of employees or even depositors. For these classes of people, the discretion is entirely that of the Central Government to choose the mode of representation. In the case of employees, on the other hand, election is indeed the most logical, the most appropriate, the most democratic and certainly the most advantageous form of representation.
Therefore, while it is open to the Central Government to amend the Scheme to improve on the machinery for the conduct of an appropriate election, it is incumbent upon it, until any such amendment is made, to work the present Scheme in such a way as to give the maximum scope for the concerned employees to exercise their choice in the selection of their representatives. That means, it would be perfectly in order for the Central Government to continue the practice followed by it prior to the circular in question or to hold election of the representatives of the concerned employees, and if necessary, to amend the Scheme suitable for that purpose."
"The Supreme Court also held in Paragraph 10 of the afore-said ruling that sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 of the Scheme of 1980 was vaguely drafted and when read without regard to the legislative intent, as disclosed by the Act, was capable of a contrary interpretation. The object of the impugned circular as stated by the Central Government namely to neutralise and discourage trade unionist amongst the officers and to keep the directorship above union affiliation, and thus encourage the growth of a "management culture" was out of harmony with the principles enshrined in Articles 19(1)(c) and 43A of the Constitution.
32. The Circular with which the Supreme 35 Court was concerned reads as follows :
"As you are aware, in terms of sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 of Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions), Scheme, 1970/80, one Director from among the employees of the nationalised banks who are not workmen, is to be appointed by the Central Government in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India on the Board of each of the Nationalised Banks. Unlike in the case of workmen, the Scheme does not lay down any procedure for selection of the non-workman Director. The intention clearly was that in the case of Office Director, Government should have ample scope and freedom in selecting any officer of the Bank to be the non-workman Director. However, hitherto panel of names sent by the banks for selection of the non-workman Director has been confined to office-bearers of the Association of Officers. Government has recently reviewed this matter in the light of the relevant provisions of the Scheme and came to a conclusion that there is no justification for 0 restricting the choice to the office-bearers of the Associations."
While concluding its judgment in the above case, the Supreme Court, in Paragraph 12, expressed a view that while it was open to the Central Government to amend the Scheme to improve on the machinery for the conduct of an appropriate election, it was incumbent upon it, until any such amendment was made, to work the present Scheme in such a way as to give the maximum scope for the concerned employees to exercise their choice in the selection of their representatives which would mean that it would be perfectly in order for the Central Government to continue the practice followed by it prior to the circular in question or to hold election of the representatives of the concerned employees, and if necessary, to amend the Scheme suitably for that purpose. With these circumstances in view, the Supreme Court declared that the circular dated August 23, 1982 was ultra vires the Act and the Scheme and was, therefore, null and void and of no effect.
33. This judgment ventures to go a step further on the same line of thinking that maximum scope for the concerned employees should be extended to exercise their choice in the selection of their representative and expresses an opinion that this purpose would be served if the process of 'Verification' is followed by allowing the representative union employees other than workmen to participate in the procedure for appointment of one Director as per Clause 3 (c) of the Scheme.
34. Let there be no ambiguity that in the case before this Court what is in dispute is not whether the appointment of Director as per Clause 3(c) of the Scheme could be made by the Government of any Officer of proven ability and character. It is accepted by all concerned that the panel of names suggested by the union could be considered, but the question is whether the same procedure for 'Verification' as followed in case of union of Workmen should be followed even in case of non-workmen employees' Union. To that extent, therefore, the weight of emphasis may differ in our case from the Supreme Court's decision cited above, but there is no diversity of principles in our case from the decision of the Supreme Court. We have largely construed the binding and specific provisions of the Scheme relating to 'Verification' to be equally applicable to the non-workmen employees.
35. The parties hotly and effectively contesting the Writ Petition had locked horns on similar issues in the past before this High Court, but I have not dealt with the same in this judgment because, respectfully, no res-judicata emerges from the same and the views expressed by this Court on the issues for Court's consideration in the present Writ Petition are not at variance with the views expressed on the material points in the past litigation.
36. Before parting with this Writ Petition it is necessary to record the statement made by the learned Counsel Sri Srinivasa Murthy, representing the 1st respondent-bank that the bank is not interested in supporting one union and defeating another and that the bank shall abide by the directions as may be given by the Court on the controversy in question. This neutral posture adopted by the 1st respondent-bank is indeed appreciated.
37. In the above view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. It is hereby ordered and directed that the 3rd respondent (Chief Labour Commissioner-Central) shall carry out 'Verification' of the membership of the unions representing the Officers of the Andhra Bank and operating in the bank by strictly following the procedure contemplated in the Schedule appended to the Scheme. The 1st respondent shall not follow the 'check-off' system as contemplated by its Circular No. 243, Ref. No. 20/7 dated November 6, 1992. The 1st respondent is further directed to accord recognition to the 'Representative Union' in accordance with the recommendation which may be made by the 3rd respondent. No costs.