JUDGMENT :

D.Y. Chandrachud, J.—In this batch of Petitions, the issue which has been raised relates to the construction to be placed upon the meaning of the expression "protected employee" in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("the Act"). Where a Union is registered as a representative Union for the entire industry-in the present case, the Co-operative Banking industry - the question for consideration is whether the total number of employees who must be regarded as protected employees, must be taken as a proportion of all the employees engaged in the industry in respect of which the Union is a representative Union or as a proportion of the employees engaged in each concern or undertaking in the industry separately. Under the material provisions of the Act, one per cent of the employees, subject to a minimum of five and a maximum of one hundred can be designated as protected employees in the manner laid down in the Act and the Rules. The Conciliator in the present case has taken the view, which is supported by the Respondent-Union, that each branch of every Co-operative Bank in the local area must be regarded as a separate unit and a minimum of five employees as well as a maximum of one hundred must be construed as an entitlement of the Union in relation to every branch of a Co-operative Bank in the industry in the local area. The correctness of that view is impugned by the Petitioners before this Court, in Writ Petition Nos. 2250 of 1990 and 3893 of 1991.

2. The petitioner in the first petition is a District Central Co-operative Bank which is deemed to have been registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Bank has its registered office at Pune and it had at the material time 174 branches in the District of Pune. The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, provides in Sub-section (4) of Section 2 that the State Government may apply the provisions of the Act by notification in the Official Gazette to such industries as may be specified generally or in any local area. The relevant notification which has been issued by the State Government extends the provisions of the Act to the Banking industry in the Co-operative Sector. The notification dated November 17, 1960 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the Act specifies 15 local areas which, it is common ground between the learned counsel, fall within the geographical limits of the District of Pune. In the petition filed by the Bank before the Court, it has been stated that the Bank has about 1354 employees out of which about 112 are in the Managerial, Supervisory or Administrative Cadres. The aforesaid 112 employees are not governed by the provisions of the Act.

3. On September 27, 1989 the First Respondent intimated to the Petitioner, the names of 23 employees for the year 1988-89 as having been approved in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Union on September 11, 1988 as persons who were regarded as protected employees within the meaning of Section 101 of the Act. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid request on September 29, 1989 adverting to the fact that on September 28, 1988 which was a year earlier, the Union had sought recognition as protected workmen for certain employees. Upon a dispute being raised by the Bank, the matter was decided by the Conciliation Officer on April 5, 1989 and in a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Officer, a Division Bench of this Court has remanded the matter for retrial in accordance with law in respect of 5 employees. In the circumstances, it was stated that for the year 1988-89, only those persons who have been regarded as protected workmen in the earlier order of the Conciliation Officer as modified by this Court on August 8, 1989, would be recognised.

4. Since a dispute arose between the Petitioner and the First Respondent, the matter was taken into conciliation in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 71-A(4) of the Rules framed under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act,