Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The respondents have resisted the appeal and Writ petition by contending that according to the practice followed by the Bank since decades only a serving employee may represent the Union in bilateral discussions with the Bank which practice is recognized by the Staff Federation also. They have taken the stand that on account of the fact that Bank being a credit institution cannot deal with a person who is not regard to be bound by the declaration of secrecy and fidelity by which other serving employees are bound and also because the Act no where lays down that the employer are bound to have negotiations with the Trade Union nor the members of such Unions are entitled to insist upon their presence in negotiations with the Employers. The respondents have taken the plea that though outsiders may be admitted as members of the Trade Unions and its office bearers, but the Act does not restrict the Employer s right or option to have negotiation only with such of the Office bearers who are its serving employees specially in a commercial concern like Banking Industry. The respondents have stated that the Code of Discipline, relied upon by the appellants does not entitle such office bearers to claim any right of representation and negotiation with the Bank. The respondents have taken further stand that M.R. Avasthi, appellant No. 2 having retired from the service of the Bank on January 31, 1995 has no right to negotiate with the Management on behalf of the Union / Staff Association and the Management is within its right and authority to decline to negotiate with him.