Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Mr. P. Sengupta, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent bank submits that in accordance with the provisions of subsection (s) of Section 2 of the said Act, a retired employee cannot be treated as a workman. As such the petitioners cannot raise an industrial dispute in terms of Sub-section (k) of Section 2 of the said Act. Mr. Sengupta further submits that in accordance with the provisions of Section (k) of Section 2 of the said Act, only the workman has a right to raise the industrial dispute. The term workmen used in the aforesaid section means and purports a substantial section of workman who can affect or impede the industry. The retired workmen cannot be treated as workmen, nor they can affect or impede the industry. With regard to the settlements entered between the respondent bank and its employees' unions. Mr. Sengupta submits that the issue of pension of the retired workmen of the respondent bank was taken into consideration by the parties in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (k) of section 2 of the aforesaid said Act. The employees' union i.e. the union of the workmen took up the issue of retired workmen of the respondent bank because it was open for the parties to the settlement to take up the issue of any person even he was not a party to the settlement. No retired workman was party to the above settlement. Mr. Sengupta submits that the term trade union defined in Sub-section (qq) of Section 2 of the said Act. Mr. Sengupta submits that according to the provisions of Section 36 of the said Act, a workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in proceedings under the said Act by the person as prescribed in the above section. But Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 only provides that for the purpose of that section, an employee who has retired or has been retrenched so as to constitute for the purpose of holding an officer in a trade union. That provision does not entitle the retired workmen to raise an industrial dispute in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (k) of Section 2 of the said Act. With regard to the impugned order Mr. Sengupta points out that the communication was made to the Secretary of the Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Retired Employees Welfare Association having a separate juristic entity. Neither that was communicated to any of the petitioners nor it relates to the question raised by the petitioner No. 1.

7. Mr. Sengupta relied upon the decision of Bilash Chandra Mitra v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. reported in 1953(1) LLJ 337, to submit that on retirement a workman seized to be a workman. There cannot be any industrial dispute at his instance. Relying upon the decision of Workman of Hoare Miller & Co. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1962(1) LLJ 721, Mr. Sengupta submits that industrial dispute must be raised by existing workmen. The existing workmen at the time of arriving at a settlement with the employer may take up the issue of any person as included in the provisions of Sub-section (k) of Section 2 of the said Act. In other words the interest of any person can be the subject-matter of a settlement in between the employer and the workman having a direct bearing on the substantial interest of the workman but that person cannot be a party to the industrial dispute in this case. The payment of pension has a direct bearing on the substantial interest of the workman because after his retirement, he will be entitled to such pension. Therefore, that issue comes within the purview of the term any person who cannot be a party to a settlement. Mr. Sengupta also relied upon the decision of Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd. v. 4th Industrial Tribunal of West Bengal and Ors., reported in 76 CWN 753, to submit that the retired workmen cannot affect the running of an industry. And as such the provision of Sub-section (k) of Section 2 does not relate to them. Mr. Sengupta also relied upon the decision of Evcrestee v. District Labour Officer reported in 1999(2) LLJ 851, to show that the definition of workmen as appears from Sub-section(s) of Section 2 means and includes those persons who are presently employed and not retired workmen. Mr. Sengupta relied upon the decision of Purandaran v. Hindustan Level Ltd., reported in 2001(2) CLR 170, to show that the retired employees cannot be entitled to claim the status of workmen under the provisions of Sub-section (s) of Section 2 of the said Act. Mr. Sengupta relies upon the decision of National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Pritam Singh Gills and Ors. reported in 1972(2) Lab. IC 857, to show that in Section 33C(2) includes all persons in the term of workmen to enable all persons whose claim, requiring computation under this sub-section in respect of an existing right arisen from his relationship as an industrial workmen. But at no stretch of imagination it can be held that the term workmen as defined in sub-section (k) of Section 2 includes the retire workman.