Back
1978 Supreme(Cal) 535
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tarun Kumar Basu, J.
Reserve Bank Employees Association - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Matter No. 546 of 1977 (Original Side)
Decided on : August 28, 1978
Somenath Chatterjee and Nigam Chakravarty … for Petitioner
Dipak Basu …for Union of India
Subrata Roychowdhury, Tapas Kumar Banerjee, Jatin Ghose Subrata Roy and A.K. Sil ... for Reserve Bank of India
The withdrawal of a customary concession is a change in the condition of service of the workmen and is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - WITHDRAWAL OF CUSTOMARY CONCESSION - REFUSAL TO REFER DISPUTE FOR ADJUDICATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1948 - WHETHER STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL - OFFICE ORDER CURTAILING GRACE TIME FOR LATE ATTENDANCE - WHETHER CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF SERVICE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, SECTIONS 2(K), 9A, 10(1) - SECOND AND FOURTH SCHEDULES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, the Employees' Association of the Reserve Bank of India, and individual employees of the Bank, challenged an order of the Bank discontinuing the practice of permitting employees to attend office late on two occasions in a month up to 12 noon and an order of the Government of India refusing to refer the alleged dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, have no statutory force and are purely contractual in nature. 2. The impugned office order curtailing the grace time for late attendance does not amount to a change in the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank. 3. The withdrawal of a customary concession is a change in the condition of service of the workmen which is clearly an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The Government of India erred in law in holding that the impugned office order did not amount to a change in the condition of service of the workmen and in refusing to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, have statutory force or are purely contractual in nature? 2. Whether the impugned office order curtailing the grace time for late attendance amounts to a change in the conditions of service of the employees of the Bank? 3. Whether the withdrawal of a customary concession is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 4. Whether the Government of India erred in law in holding that the impugned office order did not amount to a change in the condition of service of the workmen and in refusing to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, do not profess to have been framed in exercise of any statutory power under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and no sanction of the Central Government was obtained before their framing. 2. The impugned office order does not purport to effect any change in the working hours of the Bank and is a unilateral decision of the Bank which the employees are bound to accept. 3. The withdrawal of a customary concession is a change in the condition of service of the workmen and is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 4. The Government of India erred in law in holding that the impugned office order did not amount to a change in the condition of service of the workmen and in refusing to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Rule was made absolute in part. A Writ of Mandamus was issued directing the respondent Union of India to forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the impugned order dated 30th November, 1976/1st December, 1976 issued by R.P. Narula, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Labour. There was also a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Union of India and the other respondents to act according to law in the light of the Court's observations.
The Court : In this Rule, the petitioners the first of whom is the Employees' Association of the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and the others are individual employees of the Bank challenge an order of the Bank and also an order of the Government of India. These are two distinct and separate orders and are challenged on distinct and separate grounds.
2. The first one namely, the order of the Bank which is under challenge may be set out herein below :-
"OFFICE ORDER NO. 367/76/77
Late Coming - Reducing the grace time to 15 minutes.
With a view to achieving maximum efficiency, it has been decided to discontinue, henceforth the practice of permitting employees to attend office late on two occasions in a month up to 12 noon. With effect from 15th December, 1976, employees would be allowed on, not more than two occasions in a month, even with permission to come late up to a maximum period of 15 minutes only from the commencement of the working hours prescribed for the concerned category of staff. If an employee attends office late i.e. before the expiry of 15 minutes from the commencement of the working hours prescribed for him, on more than two occasions in a month, he will forfeit a day's casual leave or ordinary leave or such other leave as the competent authority may determine for every three days of such late attendance in a month and in addition will also be liable to disciplinary action in terms of Regulation 39(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948.
2. No employee will be permitted to attend office if he is late beyond a maximum of 15 minutes from the commencement of the working hours prescribed for him.
3. While the grace period for late attendance will normally be 15 minutes as provided above, the manager/Officer-in-Charge may, at his discretion, condone late attendance up to maximum of 30 minutes from the commencement of the working hours for the particular category of staff, where he is satisfied that such late attendance was entirely beyond the employee's control such as dislocation of transport system, etc. and where the grant of such permission will not cause inconvenience to the office.
Sd/-
Manager."
3. This circular is dated the 14th December, 1976. The genesis and background of the circular however goes back to the early part of that year and may be briefly noted. On the 30th March, 1976 the Personnel Manager, Reserve Bank of India by a Circular issued to all Managers and Heads of Department informed them that according to the existing practice the employees are permitted to attend office late on two occasions in a month upto 12 noon. This position has been reviewed by the Central Office in the context of improving the efficiency and for discipline in the Bank's Office. By the circular it was further stated that it has been decided that in future no employees should be permitted to attend office if he is late in attendance upto a maximum of 15 minutes from the commencement of the working hours applicable to the concerned category of staff. It was further stated that the Manager/Officer-in-Charge may in his discretion condone late attendance upto a maximum of 30 minutes where he is satisfied that such late attendance was entirely beyond the employees control such as dislocation transport system etc. and where such grant of permission will not cause inconvenience to the office. Such discretion should be exercised by the Manager/Officer-in-charge personally.
4. On the 6th April, 1976 pursuant to the above circular, a notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was given by the Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta in the prescribed form. The notice contained the substance of the proposal contained in the circular set out above.
5. On the 21st April, 1976 All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association by letter to the Manager of the Bank recorded their opposition to the notice dated 6th April, 1976. Thereafter conciliation proceedings started and we
