Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Mr. Dolia of M/s. Aiyer & Dolia, advanced leading arguments in support of the contentions that the check-off facility should not be extended to unrecognised unions. The principal contentions are the following : The code of discipline in industry evolved during the 15th National Conference in Nainital covers Banking industry as well. In the 16th Session of the said conference held some time in May, 1958, certain guidelines for recognising an union were evolved. According to the said guidelines, the union operating in a Circle representing the majority of the employees or atleast 25 per cent. of them alone should be given recognition. Such recognised union enjoys certain facilities such as to negotiate with the management on behalf of the employees etc. The National Labour Commission in paragraph 20-70 of Chapter XX of its report suggested that the check-off facility if to be provided should be restricted to the recognised unions only. Overlooking this recommendation of the National Labour Commission, if the check-off facility is to be extended to all the registered unions, irrespective of recognition, that will amount to the management committing unfair labour practice within Clause 2(b) of Schedule V to the Industrial Disputes Act. As a matter of fact, the Industrial Bill that has been introduced in the Parliament in fact restricts the rules of the trade union to provide 10% minimum membership for a period of six months. From this it is clear that the intention of the legislature was to discourage the mushroom growth of number of trade unions and thereby to achieve an industrial peace among the trade unions. The communication dated 11th January 1988 circulated to the Banks by the Government of India has no legal basis to direct the Bank management to obey the same. If at all the Government of India can issue directions to the Banks, it could be only under Section 18 of the Bank of India Act, 1955 and the said power cannot be invoked without consulting the Government of the Reserve Bank of India and the Chairman of the State Bank of India. In as much as the requirements of Section 18 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having not been complied with, it cannot be said that the communication dated 11th January 1988 was the one issued under Section 18 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Therefore, the respondents Banks are under no obligation to follow the communication dated 11th January 1988 issued by the Government of India. Apart from the above submission, the learned counsel further submitted that there is evidence to show that the communication dated 11th January 1988 by the Government of India was issued with some ulterior motive and at the instigation of certain M.Ps. like Mr. K. Ramamoorthy and Mrs. Vijayanthimala Bali and as such as the said communications is mala fide. According to the learned counsel, for these reasons, the relief prayed for viz., that check-off facility should not be granted to unrecognised unions is to be granted.

6. Miss. Vaigai learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners while adopting the arguments of Mr. Dolia further submitted that the check-off facility is guided by the principles based on Public Policy governing Industrial Relations. After referring to the recommendation of the National Labour Commission, she further submitted that the recommendation restricting the facility in favour of the recognised union was given in accordance with the code of discipline which was formulated at the 15th Tripartite Labour Conference at the national level. Though the code of discipline is not statutory in character, they are binding on the public sector undertakings. Therefore, the action extending the check-off facility to all the registered unions is contrary to the Public Policy evolved in the code of discipline and that therefore arbitrary and liable to be set aside. According to Miss Vaigai, the purpose of granting facility exclusively to recognised union is based on the principles underlying "participative management" embodied in Article 43A of the Constitution of India. In other words, the reason behind restricting the extension of check-off facility to recognised union is that the collective bargaining capacity that the union has gained through the majority should be consolidated. Otherwise their strength will be undermined. Explaining this principle, the learned counsel submitted that the collection of the subscription of the members as judicially recognised, is a vital source of strength that union's existence depends upon for its finances. Looked at from this angle, the unfair labour practice contemplated under Item 2(b) of Schedule V to the Industrial Disputes Act will be explicit in the matter of extension of check-off facility to all registered unions. Learned counsel also submitted that the extension of check-off facility to all to all the registered unions will amount to unfair labour practice as contemplated under item 2(b) of the V Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act also. Therefore, on these grounds the proposal to extend the check-off facility to all the registered unions should be struck down.

12. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that the contention that the check-off facility can be extended only to the recognised union in the light of Code of Discipline is misconceived. According to the learned counsel, nowhere in the Code of Discipline, either directly or indirectly, there is anything to show that the check-off facility can be extended only to recognised unions. Not only that, there is no clause containing any specific prohibition to extend such facility to other unions like the contesting respondent Unions. If that be the position under the Code of Discipline, the claim of the petitioners that only recognised unions alone be given the exclusive privilege of the check-off facility cannot be sustained. It is common ground, the learned counsel argued, that the Code of Discipline is non-statutory in character. In the premises, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot at all be granted. Secondly it was contended that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners based on the recommendation of the 15th Labour Commission is misleading. According to the learned counsel, the recommendation of the 15th Labour Commission underwent a review in the National Labour Conference held at New Delhi on 17th and 18th of September 1982. As per the outcome of this Labour Conference, the extension of the check-off facility to all registered unions has been favoured. Therefore, the arguments placing reliance on the recommendation of the 15th Labour Commission are of no avail. Based on a Tripartite agreement reached after the National Labour Conference held at New Delhi on 17th September 1982 and 18th September 1982, the registered unions clamoured for extension of check-off facilities and made representations for that purpose to the management as well as to the Government of India. After considering the representations, the Government of India thought that the extension of check-off facility to all registered unions would be not only in public interest but also in the interest of industrial peace among the employees of various trade unions. On that basis only the Government of India advised the bank managements to extend the check-off facility to all registered unions, whether recognised or not. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the exclusive privilege enjoyed by the recognised union in the matter of check-off facility cannot be extended to other registered unions, will not hold water. It was next contended by the learned counsel Mr. D. Murugesan that the contention based on paragraph 2(b) of Schedule V of Industrial Disputes Act is also with out force. According to the learned counsel there is no case for application of that provision, namely, 'unfair labour practice' to the facts of the present case. If at all, the non-extention of the check-off facility to registered unions will amount to unfair labour practice coming under paragraph 2(b) of Schedule V of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Murugesan further contended that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the check-off facility is extended to all registered unions, then the strength and financial status of the recognised unions will be affected is baseless. Factually, according to the learned counsel, several nationalised banks have long before the impugned advice of the Government of India, have extended the facility to all registered unions and no complaint has been received from the recognised unions that on account of extension of such facility to all registered unions, the strength and financial status of the recognised unions has been affected.

16. Mr. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P. 996, 5455 and 6626 of 1988 while adopting the arguments advanced by Mr. D. Murugesan and Mr. Chandru, submitted that the petitioners in the above writ petitions are Officers of the Bank to whom the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act will not apply. Therefore, the arguments based on the Code of Discipline and unfair labour practice will not be available to the petitioners. Apart from that, no other arguments were separately advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to challenge the extension of check-off facility to all recognised unions.