IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
All India Bank of Maharashtra, Employees Federation, (Through its General Secretary, Devidas S/o. Ramchandra Tuljapurkar) - Petitioner
Versus
The Bank of Maharashtra, (A Government of India Undertaking), Through its Managing Director and Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1884 Of 2021
Decided On : 02-08-2024
Grievance - Employees Grievance Redressal Policy - Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926; Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court held that the restriction on retired employees participating in grievance redressal meetings was arbitrary and infringed upon the rights of union members to elect their representatives.
Fact of the Case:
A trade union challenged a clause in the Employees Grievance Redressal Policy of a bank that prohibited retired employees from participating in grievance redressal committee meetings, arguing it violated their rights as elected representatives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank's policy restricting participation to only in-service employees was arbitrary and infringed upon the rights of union members to elect their representatives, as there was no legal basis for such a restriction.
Issues: Whether the bank's policy restricting retired employees from participating in grievance redressal meetings was valid and lawful under the applicable trade union and industrial dispute laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the restriction imposed by the bank was arbitrary and violated the rights of union members to elect their representatives, as there was no provision in the law preventing retired employees from participating.
Result: The court quashed the bank's policy restricting retired employees from participating in grievance redressal meetings.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner before us is a trade union, which is undisputed. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B), as under:-
i) the impugned Sub Clause (d) of the Clause 6 of the Employees Grievances Redressal Policy as approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank on 22nd November, 2019 and as Circulated by the Bank Administration on 30th November, 2019 vide letter No.AX1/ST/BM/Cir.93/2019-20, may please be quashed and set aside
AND
ii) the 1st Respondent-Bank may please be directed to delete the impugned Clause (d) of the Clause 6 of the said Employees Grievances Redressal Policy AND
(iii) further the 1st Respondent Bank may also please be directed to modify the said Policy to allow representation/participation of Office Bearers of the Petitioner-Federation (Recognized Union) who are retired employees of the 1st Respondent Bank.”
3. The Petitioner has challenged clause 6 of the Employees Grievance Redressal Policy of the Respondent bank, approved by it’s Board of Directors on 22.11.2019 and circulated by vide communication dated 30.11.2019. The challenge is posed more specifically to Sub Clause (d) of Clause 6, which prohibits participation of retired employees of the bank in the meetings of the grievance redressal committee. By Clause 6(d), the bank has permitted only those elected office bearers of the union who are ‘in- service’ employees of the bank, to participate in the grievance redressal committee meetings. The Employees’ Grievance Redressal Committee is constituted under Clause-viii of Clause-II of the Code of Conduct and Discipline, which is a part of the Memorandum of Settlement signed with the Employees federation, dated 22.10.1988.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
4. The grievance of the Petitioner Employees Federation is limited only to Clause 6(d), by which, though a person is elected as an office bearer of the union in order to participate in the wage revision negotiations or demands negotiations and to represent the union which is the sole bargaining agent in the bank, would not be permitted to participate in the grievance redressal committee’s meetings, if he has retired from the service. The Petitioner union is relying upon a judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court dated 23.12.2022, reported in MAT 83 of 2019, Writ Petition Appeal No.29480 of 2017 (UCO Bank Vs. All India UCO Bank Officers Federation and Others), with COT No.26 of 2019 (All India UCO Bank Officers Federation and Others Vs. UCO Bank and Others).
5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner points out that the learned Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has recorded the facts of the case in paragraph numbers 4 to 10, wherein, an identical situation was brought before the Calcutta High Court. The union was aggrieved by the fact that only serving officers/employees of the union were permitted to participate in the meetings/discussions/negotiations with the management. All those who had retired, notwithstanding that they were elected as the union office bearers, were not permitted to participate in the meetings for representing the members of the union.
6. The learned Advocate then points out that the Calcutta High Court held in favour of the union, in paragraph numbers 20 to 36, which read as under:-
21. In a democ
Bokajar Cement Corporation Employees’ Union Vs. Cement Corporation of India Limited
The court established that retired employees cannot be arbitrarily excluded from union representation in grievance redressal processes, affirming their rights under the Trade Unions Act and Industria....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of the members of a trade union to elect their office-bearers and the management's lack of authority to impose arbitrary restrictions ....
The Registrar of Trade Unions cannot impose restrictions contrary to the Trade Unions Act, allowing retired employees to serve as office bearers within stipulated limits.
There is no absolute right in favour of delinquent officer’s to be represented in departmental proceedings through agent of his choice and same can be restricted by employer – Only requirement is tha....
Recognised unions exclusively represent collective disputes under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, prohibiting unrecognised unions from participation.
Trade unions have the constitutional right to self-governance, and employer-imposed restrictions on election processes are unconstitutional.
Voluntary Retirement Scheme employees cannot claim benefits of pay revisions post-separation, as acceptance of the scheme constitutes a waiver of rights to future wage adjustments.
The rights of representation under Sections 36(1) and (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act are unconditional and independent of the conditions in Section 36(4).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.