Back
1996(3) Supreme 319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
State Bank of India Staff Association and Anr. -Appellants
versus
State Bank of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11259 of 1995
with
Writ Petition No. 713 of 1995
Decided on 3-4-1996
Held : The provisions contained in Sections 6 and 22 reproduced above relate to the registration of a Trade Union and constitution of the executive of the said Union. The provisions of Sections 6 and 22 indicate that an ordinary or a temporary member may be an office bearer but they no where provide that such a member shall also have a right to negotiate with the management or the management would be under an obligation to negotiate with an office bearer of the Union who is no longer in the employment of the Industry which the Trade Union is connected. (Para 8)
The provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926 have to be harmonised with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also to be kept in view that the Industrial Disputes Act is a much later Act, which besides other mattes, specifically concentrates on harmonious relations between the employer and workmen, the disputes between the two and settlement thereof by negotiations with the assistance of their respectative represantatives. It is for all these reasons and as stated in their counter-affidavit by the respondents, that a practice and usage is followed by the respondent-Bank since decades whereby only serving employees represent the Union in bilateral discussions with the Bank and that this practice has been recognised by the Staff Federation also which is a body to coordinate the activities of various Unions/Associations of the employees of the State Bank of India and its associate Banks. This stand of the respondents has been fully supported by the Staff Federation - Intervenor. (Para 9)
Further held that M.R. Avasthy, appellant No. 2 was an ordinary member of the Staff Association within the meaning of Rule 5 of the Staff Association Rules. Being such ordinary member he was elected as General Secretary of the Staff Association in the triennal meeting held on October 16, 1994. Admittedly, M.R. Avasthi retired from the service of the respondent-Bank on January 31, 1995 on attaining the age of superannuation. He was not elected as an honorary or a temporary member in any Special Meeting of the General Council or of the Committees referred to above convened for that purpose any time after his retirement. Consequently, in view of Rule 9 M.R. Avasthi, appellant No. 2 cannot legitimately claim his continuance as an ordinary member and General Secretary of the Union after his retirement from the service of the Bank. Clause (a) of Rule 9 further reinforces this position which contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in the Rules, a member of the Central Committee/ Central Working Committee/ Circle Committee/Unit Committee will forthwith cease to be such member if he ceased to be an ordinary/honorary member. Since M.R. Avasthi ceased to be an ordinary member on his retirement on January 31, 1995 and since he was not elected as honorary member at the triennial or a Special Meeting of the General Council, etc. as contemplated in Rule 6, he neither remained as ordinary member or as honorary member of the Association. He, therefore, cannot claim a right to negotiate with the management as a representative of the Union. Even otherwise he cannot claim such a right in view of the provisions contained in clause (ix) of Rule 14(a) which provde that the General Secretary elected by the Circle General Council for each administrative circle of the said Bank should belong to any Branch/Office of the Bank of the Circle for which he is elected. M.R. Avasthi can be said to belong either to any Branch/Office of the Bank only if he is in the employment of the Bank. After the retirement he no longer belongs to any Branch/Office of the Bank of the Circle as he would be deemed to have ceased to belong to any Branch/Office of the Bank. (Para 11)
The policy of the Federation by which the appellant No. 1 being its affiliate is also bound, permits representation only by a serving employee of the Bank and not by a person who ceases to be an employee of the Bank. (Para 12)
(ii) Trade Unions Act, 1926-Sections 6(e) and 22-State Bank of India-Staff Association Rules-Rules 38(a) & 42-Triennial Meeting of General Council-Triennial election of Staff Association, Lucknow Circle became due in 1992-Triennial meeting of circle was called in October 1994 in which appellant No. 2 was elected as General Secretary-Said meeting cannot be held to be valid meeting in respect of the matters transacted in the said meeting.
Held : Admittedly, the triennial election of the Staff Association, Lucknow Circle became due in 1992. The triennial meeting of the Circle was, however, called on October 16, 1994 in which M.R. Avasthy, appellant No. 2 is said to have been elected as General Secretary when he was in the service of the Bank. Admittedly the said triennial meeting was called much after the prescribed period of 9 months as contained in Rule 38(a) and specific approval of the Registrar of the Trade Union was obtained for calling the said meeting on October 16, 1994. The said meeting, therefore, cannot be held to be valid meeting in respect of the matters transacted in the said meeting. As M.R. Avasthy, appellant No. 2 is said to have been elected as General Secretary in the said triennial meeting of the Council it cannot be said to be a valid election. Again as provided in Rule 42 of the Staff Association Rules, the triennial meeting of the Circle General Council has to be held within 6 months from close of triennial term, unless precluded by law and extention of time requires approval of the Central Committee for election of office-bearers of the Circle Committee, but no such approval of the Central Committee has been placed on record. The election of appellant No. 2 as General Secretary will be bad on this account also. (Para 15)
JUDGMENT
Faizan Uddin, J.-The parties in the aforementioned Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition are the same with the distinction that in the Civil Appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated July 17, 1995 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Bench Lucknow, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1662 (M/B) of 1995, filed by the appellants on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the earlier Writ Petition no. 400 (S/B) of 1995 was dismissed as withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition for the same relief. While the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India pertains to the relief for quashing of the letter dated May 3, 1995 issued by the respondents to the General Secretary of the SBI Staff Association, Lucknow Circle and also for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner Association and to negotiate with the appellant/petitioner No. 2 Mr. M.R. Awasthy who claims to be the General Secretary of the Staff Association. The appellants and the petitioners being the same, they shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellants.
2. The facts in brief as they emerge from the memo of appeal and the writ petition are that the State Bank of India, respondent No. 1 is divided into 13 local Head Offices including one at Lucknow. These Head Offices are called circles of the respondent Bank. In all the circles there is a Circle Management consisting of Chief General Manager and General Managers. The appellant No. 1 - The State Bank of India Staff Association (hereinbefore referred to as the Staff Association ) is an affiliate of the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Federation ), a registered Trade Union, under The Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The Staff Association represents the workmen/employees of Lucknow Circle. According to the appellants, there is an Office of the Staff Association in each circle as well as in each branch of respondent Bank throughout the country. The Staff Association represents the workmen/ employees of the respective circles through its lawfully elected Office bearers in accordance with the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Staff Association , having a right to negotiate to industrial matters as the Circle Associations and their duly elected members are recognised by the respondents. Further case of the appellants is that according to the Code, the Joint Con- sultative Committee comprising the Management and the representatives of the Staff Association is constituted at two levels, namely, (1) at the Central Level with respondent No. 1 and (2) in each local Head Office of the Circle of respondent No. 1, which are called as a Central Consultative Committee and Circle Consultative Committee of the Bank respectively. The Central Consultative Committee is represented through the Staff Federation and the Circle Consultative Committee is represented through the Circle Staff Association .
3. Further case of the petitioners is that in the Circle General Body Meeting of the Staff Association held at Lajpat Bhawan, Kanpur on October 16, 1994 M.R. Avasthi, appellant No. 2 was elected as General Secretary of the Staff Assocation for a period of three years, in accordance with the bye-laws and Constitution of the Staff Association. The said election of appellant No. 2 as General Secretary was further confirmed by the Central Committee held at Vrindaban on November 19, 1994, by reason of which M.R. Avasthi, the appellant No. 2 has a legitimate right to represent the Staff Association, appellant No. 1 and about 16,000 workmen/employees of the Circle Management. But the respondent No. 3, the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) of the State Bank of India, Lucknow by his impugned letter dated May 3, 1995, communicated to the General Secretary, the appellant No. 2 herein, that in view of the advise received from the Central Of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
