Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 22
High Court Of Calcutta
Debasish Kar Gupta, J.
STANDARD CHARTERED GRINDLAYS BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
WP 1998 Of 2003
Decided On : 01/16/2007
A.K.DE, A.K.RAY, P.S.SENGUPTA, R.N.MAJUMDAR
Retired employees are not considered "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore cannot raise industrial disputes or be parties to bipartite settlements under the Act.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 2(K), 2(P), 2(S) - RETIRED EMPLOYEES - PENSION - SETTLEMENT - WORKMEN - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE: In the context of industrial disputes, the term "industrial dispute" encompasses disputes between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, relating to employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or working conditions. While workmen can participate in bipartite settlements and raise issues affecting any person, including retired employees, retired employees themselves cannot be parties to industrial disputes. The definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes persons employed in various capacities, but excludes retired employees. This distinction is significant because only workmen can be parties to industrial disputes and participate in bipartite settlements. Retired employees, though affected by issues such as pension, cannot be direct parties to such disputes. Settlements arrived at during conciliation proceedings, as defined in Section 2(p), are considered binding agreements between employers and workmen. However, retired employees, not being workmen, cannot be parties to such settlements. Their interests can be taken up by the workmen during negotiations, but they cannot directly participate or raise disputes on their own behalf.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, representing retired employees of a bank, sought a direction to the regional Labour Commissioner to submit a failure report on the conciliation of an industrial dispute regarding the denial of higher pensionary benefits to retired employees who retired before a specific date. The bank had entered into several settlements with its employees' union, addressing pension issues, but retired employees were not parties to these settlements.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that retired employees cannot raise an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as they are not considered "workmen" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. While workmen can take up issues affecting retired employees during bipartite settlements, retired employees themselves cannot be direct parties to industrial disputes.
Issues: 1. Whether a retired employee can raise an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether a retired employee is considered a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term "industrial dispute" under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, encompasses disputes between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, relating to employment, non-employment, terms of employment, or working conditions. Retired employees, though affected by issues such as pension, cannot be direct parties to such disputes. 2. The definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes persons employed in various capacities, but excludes retired employees. This distinction is significant because only workmen can be parties to industrial disputes and participate in bipartite settlements.
Final Decision: The writ application filed by the petitioners was dismissed, as the court held that retired employees cannot raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they are not considered "workmen" under the Act.
( 2 ) THE petitioner. No. 1 is a Regional Trade Union of the retired employees of the respondent bank. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the retired employees of the respondent bank. The respondent bank was formerly known as ANZ grindlays Bank. It is renamed and known as the Standard Chartered grindlays Bank.
( 3 ) ON the basis of a settlement entered on November 20, 1997 under section 2 (b) read with section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with Rule 58 of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 between the ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. , and all India Grindlays Bank Employees Association, the pension of all retired employees was enhanced on ad hoc basis irrespective of their date of retirement. The above settlement was valid till December 31, 1998. By virtue of a comprehensive settlement entered on March 10, 1999 under section 2 (b) read with section 18 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 58 of the Central rules, 1957 between the ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. , and All India Grindlays bank Employees Association, the quantum of monthly pension for various categories of retired employees as also future pensionaries was revised with effect from April 1, 1999 for a period of two years. By virtue of a subsequent settlement entered on September 24, 2001 under section 2 (b) read with section 18 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules 1957 between the Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. , and the Grindlays Bank Employees Union, Kolkata, certain terms of the earlier settlement were revised. While enhancing the upper limit of pension from Rs. 6,000/- to 9,000/- of the employees retired on or after November 1, 2001, the respondent bank did not revise the quantum of pension of the employees who had already retired from the services of the bank. "the standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Retired Employees Welfare Association", registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, made several representations to the respondent bank for consideration of the case of the retired employees on the question of extending the benefit of enhanced pension to the retired employees. Ultimately the aforesaid "standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Retired Employees Welfare Association" made an application before the respondent No. 2 for a tripartite conciliation meeting to settle the dispute with regard to extension of benefit of enhanced pension to all the retired employees of the respondent bank. The respondent no. 2 as per communication issued under Memo No. 7/1/2002/e. I. dated october 17, 2002 informed the respondent bank of the aforesaid grievance. The respondent bank as per communication dated October 13, 2002 addressed to the respondent No. 2 raised an objection to the locus standi of the Standard chartered Griendlays Bank Retired Employees Welfare Association to raise such dispute before the respondent No. 2. According to that communication, the dispute not being an "industrial dispute", it was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 to entertain the same. Finally the respondent No. 2 as per impugned order communicated under Memo No. 14/9/2002/b. I. dated March 21, 2003 advised the Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Retired employees Welfare Association to approach the Labour Court for appropriate relief, if any under section 33c (2) of the said Act. Hence this writ application is filed.
( 4 ) MR. Rabin Majumdar, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Retired employees Welfare Association was registered under
