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 on their representation.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - This appeal is at the instance of UCO Bank and is directed against judgment and order dated December 17, 2018 passed by Learned Single Judge in WPA 29480 of 2017 whereby the Bank was directed to allow writ petitioner/respondent no. 2 or any duly elected as office-bearer of the Union but not serving in the Bank to participate in the negotiations.

2. All India UCO Bank Officers' Federation (for short 'the Federation') and its General Secretary being the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in this appeal have preferred a cross-objection being COT 26 of 2019 and have prayed for striking down the impugned policy of the Bank dated November 3, 2017 and for quashing the letter dated 3rd November, 2017 and 24th November, 2017.

3. Facts giving rise to the instant appeal are summarized hereunder as follows:

The Federation herein claims to be a registered Trade Union of which the writ petitioner no. 2/respondent no. 2 is its General Secretary. The respondent no. 2 retired from service of the Bank with effect from December 1, 2003 but, in terms of the Constitution of the Federation he is eligible to contest the election of the office-bearers of the Federation and to carry on its functions and discharge his duties for the post for which he was elected. The Bank in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on November 3, 2017 took a decision to allow only serving officers who are duly elected office-bearers of the Majority Officers' Association in the meetings/discussions/negotiations with the management of the Bank. Subsequently,Bank by a letter dated November 24, 2017 informed the Federation about the aforesaid policy decision. Since, the aforesaid decision of the Bank restricted the right of the retired officers who are also the office-bearers of the Majority Officers' Association to participate in the meetings/ discussions/ negotiations with the management of the Bank, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein filed WPA 29480 of 2017 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Bank to set aside and quash the resolution dated November 3, 2017 and the letters dated November 3rd, 2017 and November 24th, 2017.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the Bank contended that a Trade Union neither has a common law  right nor a statutory right to negotiate. He further submitted that since the Bank has given the right of negotiation in terms of its industrial policy, the same cannot be made the subject matter of a judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short 1926 Act') deals with the formation and function of a Trade Union and regulates internal affairs by such registration. The said Act does not confer any power of negotiation or bargaining with third parties in any manner. He further contended that the 1926 Act does not provide that a member of a Trade Union shall have a right to negotiate with the management or that the management would be under an obligation to negotiate with an office bearer of the union. He further contended that a retired employee cannot claim a right to negotiate with the management even if he happens to be the office bearer of the union. In support of such submission, Mr. Choudhury places reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India Staff Association vs. State Bank of India reported in (1996) 4 SCC 378. He also  referred to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of UCO Bank Employees' Association and Anr. vs. UCO Bank and Anr. reported at (2014) SCC Online Cal 5074.

5. By placing reliance upon a decision of the High Court at Rajasthan, Jodhpur in the case of All India SBBJ Employees' Coordination Committee vs. Union of India & Ors reported at 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 11826, Mr. Choudhury learned Senior Counsel, argued that amendment to Section 22 of the 1926 Act does not confer any right on the retired employee, office bearer of the Union to par