Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"17. General /Rotational Transfers: After discussions, it was agreed that the matter may be decided at Zonal level with reference to the position prevailing in each State."

This clearly indicates that the Management and the Union agreed that the question of framing fresh norms or modifying the existing norms as regards General/Rotational transfers are concerned be decided at Zonal level with reference to the postion prevailing in each State. It is in the form of a delegation of power by the Central Managment to Zonal Management to frame fresh norms or modify the existing norms in so far as General/Rotational transfers are concerned and there is no delegation of power to the Zonal level office to frame or modify the norms of tranfer in respect of redeployment transfer. Then came the framing of fresh norms at the zonal level in the year 1995 in consultation with the Office bearers of the majority union at the level of Zonal Office at Hyderabad as contained in Circular No. 35/95/3033/ZOH/IRS dt. 23-5-1995. The norms contained in this circular were evolved /framed after having a discussion/negotiation between the Management represented by its Deputy General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Deputy Divisional Manager, Manager (IR), Manager (PER) and two officers on the one side and the Union represented by General Secretary, Secretary of the Union at the Central level and Chairman, State Secretary, State Assistant Secretaries and a C.E.C. member of the Union at the State on the other side. The norms for transfers contained in the aforementioned circular dated 23-9-1995 read thus:

12. Circular No. 88/91 dt. 25-3-91 issued by the Central Management of the Bank in consultation with the Union conceives and speaks about two categories of transfers, namely, Redeployment transfer and General/Rotation transfer whereas the Circular No. 35/95 dt. 23-5-1995 speaks only about rotational transfer, after classifying the same into two categories mentioned therein. It does not speak about Redeployment transfer at all. Clause 17 of Circular No. 228/94 dt. 29-9-1994 drawn by the Central office of the bank enables any Zonal office to decide on norms relating to General/Rotational transfers only. When this is the position, in the counter filed by the Bank Management a confusion is created. In paras 8 and 9 of the counter the impugned transfer orders are described as Rotational transfers whereas in the same counter in para 12 at page 11 they described it as Deployment transfers. The bank also claims that the earlier Deployment transfers are re-named as Rotational transfers. By re-naming Re-Deployment Transfer as Rotational transfer the Zonal office cannot lay down norms virtually in respect of redeployment transfer contrary to norms laid down by the Central Office. The Zonal office cannot be permitted to do something indirectly which it cannot do directly. From these facts which are borne out from the records what emerges are the following:

(i) Vide Circular No. 88/91dt. 25-3-1991 the Central Administration of the Bank laid down norms in respect of two categories of transfers applicable to all the employees working throughout the country in the establishment of the bank. Even the so-called delegation vide Circular No. 228/94 dt. 29-9-1994 does not permit any Zonal Office to frame guidelines or norms governing redeployment transfers are concerned.
(ii) The Zonal Office at Hyderabad, a State level office of the bank cannot frame norms superseding the norms laid down by the Central Office in respect of Redeployment transfers are concerned.
(iii) Although Circular No. 35/95 dt. 23-5-1995 speaks only about two categories of Rotational Transfers, in the light of the norms contained therein in general and the stand taken by the Management in the counter in particular, it should be held that by Circular No. 35/95 dt. 23-5-1995 the Zonal Office at Hyderabad laid down the norms in respect of Redeployment transfers in supersession of norms earlier laid down by the Central Office vide Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991. This action of the Zonal Office at the State level, in my considered opinion, cannot be sustained as valid for more than one reason. The policies/norms evolved by the bank-Management in consultation with the Trade Union governing transfers in the year 1982 and 1991 are not the settlements arrived at between the parties under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. But it cannot be forgotten that the norms were laid down by the Management after going through the process of collective bargaining with the majority Union. Therefore it should be held that the norms laid down by the Central office after consultation with the office bearers of the Central Union covering all the employees serving in the services of the bank should have a sanctity and weightage and a subordinate office in the echelon of administration of the bank cannot lay down norms contrary to the one laid down by the Central Administration of the bank. At this juncture it is also relevant to note that the norms contained in Circular No. 35 /95 dt. 23-5-95 were not evolved by the Zonal Office with participation of any of the officers of the bank at the central level. If this is permitted then it will not be in the best interests of the administration of the bank nor in the interests of best industrial relations in the bank. Therefore I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the norms contained in Circular No. 35/95 dated 23-5-95 issued by the Zonal office at Hyderabad cannot be sustained. However, Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, the learned standing counsel for the Bank would submit that the norms contained in Circular No. 35/95 dt. 23-5-95 were framed in consultation with the Head office vide proceedings No. 589 /0089 /PD. IRD (W) /P AP-11 dated 24-3-1995. The learned counsel made available to the Court a copy of the confidential letter referred to above written by the Assistant General Manager. That letter is of no help to the bank. That confidential letter written by the Assistant General Manager does not indicate whether the subject was placed before the Board of Directors of the bank at the Central level and any decision was taken. In the absence of any material placed before the Court to show that the opinion expressed by the Assistant General Manager in the confidential letter reflects the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the bank at the Central level I am not prepared to accept the view contained in that letter as that of the Central Management. More over it should be noted that 1991 norms laid down by the Management at the central level in consultation with the office bearers of the Central union cannot be diluted or modified by subordinate officials in the administration. Therefore I reject the argument of the learned counsel for the bank in that regard. Therefore I hold that the transfer policy framed by the Zonal office at the State level vide its Circular No. 35 / 95 dated 23-5-1995 is invalid.