Back
1982 Supreme(Cal) 294
High Court Of Calcutta
G.N. Roy, J.
Gurudas Chatterjee – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
Decided On: August 13, 1982
Advocate Appeared:
Amalesh Mitra, Debi Pal, Madhusudan Banerji, N.C.Chakravarti, Partha Sarathi Sengupta
An employer can issue a circular reminding employees of their obligation to be punctual and to attend office on time, without violating the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as long as the circular does not change any conditions of service, withdraw any customary concessions or privileges, or introduce any new rules of discipline.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 9A - WITHDRAWAL OF PRIVILEGE - CHANGE IN SERVICE CONDITION - NOTICE - STATE BANK OF INDIA - EMPLOYEES' ATTENDANCE - CIRCULAR - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The State Bank of India issued a circular imposing strict discipline on the office attendance of its employees, including officers. The circular required employees to be present at the office by 10 A.M. and prohibited them from leaving before 5 P.M. Employees who arrived late were required to submit a written explanation and could be denied permission to join the office. The circular also stated that unpunctual attendance and unauthorized absence would be considered acts of misconduct and could lead to disciplinary action. The petitioners, a union of State Bank of India employees, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the circular, arguing that it violated the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires employers to give notice to employees before changing their conditions of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the circular did not violate Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act because it did not change any conditions of service. The court found that the Bank had always had the right to insist on punctuality and that the circular was simply a reminder of this right. The court also found that the Bank had not withdrawn any customary concession or privilege that had the force of an accepted condition of service. The court noted that the Bank had previously allowed employees to come late to work, but that this was a matter of leniency and not a right. The court also found that the circular did not introduce any new rule of discipline, as unpunctuality was already a misconduct under the existing conditions of service.
Issues: 1. Whether the circular issued by the State Bank of India violated the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the circular changed any conditions of service of the employees? 3. Whether the circular withdrew any customary concession or privilege that had the force of an accepted condition of service? 4. Whether the circular introduced any new rule of discipline?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, requires employers to give notice to employees before changing their conditions of service. 2. A change in service condition occurs when an employer unilaterally alters a term or condition of employment that is specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. 3. A customary concession or privilege that has the force of an accepted condition of service is a term or condition of employment that has been established through long-standing practice and has become an implied part of the employment contract. 4. A new rule of discipline is a rule that is introduced by an employer that changes the way in which misconduct is dealt with.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the circular did not violate Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act and that it did not change any conditions of service, withdraw any customary concessions or privileges, or introduce any new rules of discipline.
1. THIS writ petition is heard as a contested application with notice to the respondents and Mr. N. C. Chakraborty with' Mr. Madhusudan Banerjee have appeared for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 and mr. Amalesh Mitra has appeared for the respondent No. 2. '
2. THE petitioner No. 1 is an employee of the State Bank of India and also the Chief secretary of the State Bank of India Staff association, viz. the petitioner No. 2. Against issue of a circular dated 25th ''march, 1982 by the General Manager (Operations) giving directions relating to office attendance of the employees of the state Bank of India, the instant writ petitioner has been moved after demanding justice by the petitioners requesting the state Bank of India to withdraw the said circular. The impugned circular is Annexure 'b' to the writ petition and it appears that by the said Circular No, 34 of 1982, the general Manager (Operations) has held that growing indiscipline amongst all categories of staff in many areas of activities of state Bank of India, beside causing tremendous inconveniences to the Bank's customers, has been tarnishing the image of the bank. At this critical juncture when serious concern is being expressed both by the public and the Government in the matter of unhealthy state of affairs obtaining in the banking industry and severe adverse criticism on the un-punctuality in attendance by the Bank employees is causing fast erosion of the result of all the good work being done by the majority employees of State bank of India in various spheres. The general Manager has also observed in the said circular that it is an observed fact that extreme slackness is permitted at many of the branches/offices of the State Bank of india in monitoring the employees' attendance/departure. As a service organisation the Bank can ill-afford to sacrifice time discipline amongst the employees and it has been decided by the Bank to accord the highest priority in toning up discipline which alone can increase productivity and ensure better customer service. Punctuality in attendance and unfailing observance of work discipline in all spheres have to be watchwords of the State Bank of India for success. In the said context of the situation it is felt that not only the existing, instruction on office attendance needs reiteration but also the following additional guidelines, strict enforcement of which with immediate effect is a must. It appears that by the said circular all employees including officers have been subjected to strict discipline of attendance in office punctually. It has been directed that the attendance register for the award staff will be made available well before the commencement of service hour namely, before 10 A. M. at most of the branches. The Branch Managers/managers of Division/departmental Sectional Heads must ensure that the attendance register is withdrawn punctually at the commencement of the working hours (i. e. 10 A. M. ). The employee coming to office after the opening time/designated hour of commencement of duty can be refused permission to join office and asked to submit leave applications. Refusal to grant permission employees to attend office after opening time i. e. 10 A. M. at most offices/designated hour is a prerogative of the management but this should be exercised by the Branch managers/departmental Heads judiciously so that cases of genuine defaults in the area are dealt with appropriately after scanning the facts or reasons adduced by the employees in each such case, the employees should submit in writing the causes of the delay and the Branch Manager/manager of Division/departmental Head record thereon this decision of permitting or non-permitting to join office, such written submissions being retained in a separate file. The above instructions supersede earlier instructions to allow late attendance upto one hour after the scheduled reporting time. Along with the said circular, the specimens of the memoranda have been enclosed. The
