Back
2003 Supreme(SC) 684
2003(5) Supreme 406
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Orissa High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Chairman, State Bank of India & Anr. -Petitioners/Appellants
versus
All Orissa State Bank Officers Association & Anr. -Respondents
Review Petition (C) Nos. 1111-1112 of 2002
In
Civil Appeal Nos. 3337-3338 of 2002
Decided on 31-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners/Appellants : Mukul Rohatgi, Additional Solicitor General, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Kapur, Advocate.
For the Intervenor : Rajiv Dhawan, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Sanjiv Kumar, B.K. Satija, Advocates.
For the Respondent : R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Sunita Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : In-person.
IMPORTANT POINT
There is no Common Law right of a trade union to represent its members, whether for purposes of collective bargaining or individual grievance redressal of its members.
Headnote:Labour Law-Rules for Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Union Rules, 1994-Rule 24-Registered unrecognised Union of Bank Officers-Rights of-Public interest litigation filed by respondent Association claiming parity with office bearers of another union which had been recognised-Allegations against petitioner Bank of adopting policy of hostile discrimination against them while showing undue favour to the other union which claims to represent majority of the officers-Privilege of discussing individual grievances of officers has not been given even to trade unions representing majority of the officers-Denying such a right of representation to minority union, when such a right is not conceded even to majority union, does not amount to discrimination requiring redressal at the hands of High Court-High Court held not justified in holding that respondent union should be afforded this opportunity-Review petition allowed-Constitution of India-Article 226.
Held : There is no Common Law right of a trade union to represent its members, whether for purposes of collective bargaining or individual grievances of members. This is an inroad made into the Common Law by special statutes. Either the special statute operates proprio vigore, or it does not. In the situation before us, it is undisputed that Rule 24(a) on which the Respondent association and the High Court placed reliance, has no application. This is accepted even in the judgment under review. Nonetheless, on general principles of equity, justice and fair play the judgment under review holds that the minority trade union should also be afforded an opportunity of ventilating individual grievances of its members. It appears to us that, in doing so, the attention of this Court was not adverted to the elaborate grievance procedure machinery which is in existence and the details of which are placed on record. Having considered the matter in its entire perspective, we are inclined to agree with the submissions, of the Review Petitioner. We do not think that denying such a right of representation to the minority union, when such a right is not conceded even to the majority union, amounts to discrimination requiring redressal at the hands of the High Court. It is also not possible for the High Court to exercise its powers under article 226 to direct an employer to bring into existence such a system of representation in grievance procedure. In the absence of arbitrariness or discrimination, in our judgment, there was no scope at all for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is urged by Shri Salve for the Review Petitioner that the application of such a principle in one zone might create serious repercussions all over, since the bank has branches throughout the country. We also noticed that the appropriate government in respect of the State Bank of India is the Central Government and the rules made by the State Government cannot be enforced against it. Considering all aspects of the matter, it appears to us that the review petition must be allowed, as these crucial issues were not considered in the judgment under review. (Paras 12 & 13)
JUDGMENT
Srikrishna, J.-These review petitions have been filed by the State Bank of India which is the unsuccessful Appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 3337 - 3338 of 2002.
2. The circumstances under which the present review petitions arise, briefly recounted, are as follows:-
3. The Review Petitioner is a nationalised bank and Respondent No. 1, All Orissa State Bank Officers Association (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent association") is stated to be a registered unrecognised union representing less than 9 percent of the officers in the Orissa Circle, having membership of only 300 officers of the Petitioner bank in the Orissa circle as against the total number of about 2900 officers. The association filed a public interest litigation in the High Court of Orissa, Cuttack claiming parity with the office bearers of another union known as the State Bank of India Officers Association, which had been recognised by the management of the Petitioner bank for the purpose of collective bargaining. The main grievance put forth by the Respondent association in the said petition was that the Petitioner bank had adopted a policy of hostile discrimination against them and was showing undue favour to the other union which claims to represent the majority of the officers.
4. By the judgment dated 24.11.98 the writ petition was allowed directing inter-alia as under:-
"For the foregoing reasons we set aside Paragraph 2 of the staff circular No. 91 of 1997 if the same is still in force and direct the opposite parties to confer such rights on the petitioner-Association as are available to them under Rule 24 of the Verification Rules.
The Management of the State Bank of India are also directed to keep in mind the observations made in this judgment while dealing -with its employees; officers and their Unions, recognised or unrecognised."
5. Before the High Court, the Respondent association had relied on a set of rules known as "The Rules For Verification Of Membership And Recognition Of Trade Unions Rules, 1994". Particular reference was made to Rule 24 thereof which confers some rights on unrecognised Unions. It is not clear from the record as to under what provision of law the aforesaid rules have been prescribed. Counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner, and the Respondent who appeared in person, were unable to throw light on the statutory efficacy of the said rules. In any event, the High Court had itself noticed in its judgment that the rules were not binding under any provision of law, and this fact is not disputed at the bar. Despite holding that these rules were not binding, the High Court held that the spirit and principle behind Rule 24 was a salutary one and, therefore, the Petitioner bank should permit the Respondent association, albeit that it was unrecognised, to meet and discuss with the employer or a person appointed by the employer the grievances of individual members relating to his service-conditions. On this reasoning, the High Court issued a Writ of Mandamus to the Review Petitioner bank directing it to implement the principle, if not the provisions, of Rule 24(a). This direction was challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 3337 - 3338 of 2002. These Civil Appeals were dismissed by a judgment of this Court dated May 6, 2002. The judgment specifically records the observation of the High Court that, although Rule 24 of the Verification Rules itself does not apply, the principle behind the rule can be extended to any normal, unrecognised Union, even if it is not a union of workmen. It was also observed in the judgment that rules under the Indian Trade Unions Act had been framed with a view to avoid arbitrariness, bias and favouritism in the matter of recognition of trade unions, that procedure prescribed therein was intended to ascertain which of the trade unions really commands the support of the majority of the employees and that such a procedure is intended to enable both the trade union and the employer to carry on collective bargaining e
