Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. An employee of the first respondent-Bank has approached this Court seeking mandamus, forbearing the first respondent-Bank from permitting the respondents 3 and 4 to participate in the negotiations and discussions with the Bank-Management in respect of any matter pertaining to employer-employee relations of the Bank.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Code of Discipline was entered into between the first respondent-Bank and All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union on 05.10.1964. As per the said Code of Discipline, only those members, who are in service of the first respondent-Bank alone are entitled to be office-bearers of All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union, whereas, the respondents 3 and 4 are President and Secretary of the Union, who retired on 30.06.2012 and 31.03.2012 respectively and therefore, they cannot remain as office-bearers of the Union and they cannot negotiate with the first respondent-Bank Management.

3. Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the third and fourth respondents retired from the first respondent-Bank, their continuation as President and Secretary of the Union is in violation of Code of Discipline. There is no works committee constituted as per Sections 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that there are allegations against the third and fourth respondents and the enquiry / investigation by the CBI is pending against them. He relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India Staff Association Vs. State Bank of India and others reported in AIR 1996 SCC 1685, wherein it has been held that the representative who is not in the employment of the establishment cannot represent the employee. Therefore, he would contend that the respondents 3 and 4 are disqualified to represent the employees of the first respondent-Bank. He also referred to Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, to contend that not more than one third or five office-bearers would be outsiders. Therefore, he sought for the relief.

(iv) Third and fourth respondents have been admitted as Honorary Members of the Union, after their retirement as per Clause 4 of the Bye-laws and therefore, they are entitled to continue as office-bearers. Section 22 (2) Explanation of Trade Unions Act speaks about restriction with regard to the maximum number of outsiders, who are entitled to be office-bearers and does not prohibit the respondents 3 and 4 from holding the post.

(v) Code of Discipline has no statutory force and it is evolved in Trade Union conventions. It is an informal understanding between the parties and therefore he cannot be equated with the settlements reached in the course of conciliation.

(ix) The learned senior counsel referred to the judgment of Kerala High Court in MA David Vs. KSE Board reported in 1973 KLJ 486 equivalent MANU/KE/0284/1973 to contend that the Code of Discipline has no statutory force. With regard to the same point, he relied upon another judgment in Management of APSRTC Vs. Workmen of APSRTC reported in (2009) 1 LLJ 439 equivalent MANU/AP/0171/2008. Similar dictum has been laid down in K.Vel Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporation & Others reported in MANU/TN/168/12.