ORDER :

(Soumen Sen, J.) :

1. By consent of the parties the appeal and the applications are take up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. The appeal is arising out of a judgment and order dated 21st June, 2013 in connection with an application filed by the respondent/defendant no.1 bank on 22nd June, 2012 under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The learned Trial Judge allowed the said application on contest and dismissed the suit.

4. The appellants are aggrieved by the said order.

5. The plaintiff filed a suit on 26th August, 2009 praying inter alia for a declaration that the defendant no. 1 Bank is bound to act in terms of Bhave Award dated 26th September, 1994 and interim settlement made between the defendant no. 1 Bank and its employees on 24th September, 2001 as modified by the settlement dated 29th November, 2007 and the defendant no. 1 Bank is bound and obliged to give all benefits in terms of the said two settlements. The other prayers of the plaint are arising out of said two settlements.

6. The plaintiffs alleged that after the signing of the terms of settlement dated 24th September, 2001 the defendant no. 1 bank had failed and/or refused to implement the provisions of the Bhave Award in its true spirit by not extending the benefit of upward revision in pensionary benefits to the employees of the defendant no. 1 bank, who retired prior to 1st November, 2001. It is also alleged that the rights of the ex-employees of the respondent/defendant no.1 bank represented by the plaintiff no. 1 association and/or union have been denied by the respondent/ defendant no.1 bank.

7. The respondent/defendant no.1 bank entered appearance into the suit on 7th June, 2010 and thereafter on 22nd December, 2010 filed a written statement. The learned Trial Judge framed issues on 2nd December, 2012. The suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on 22nd June, 2012. On that very date the respondent/defendant no.1 bank filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. In order to appreciate the scope of the said application it is necessary to briefly indicate the case made out by the plaintiff in the suit.

9. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff’s Union granted registration under the Trade Union Act, 1926 on 13th June, 2003. The plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are retired employee of the respondent/defendant no.1 bank. Before the plaintiff union was granted the registration, the cause of the said retired employees used to be espoused by an Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961 by the name of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Retired Employees’ Welfare Association.

10. The employees Union of the Standard Chartered Bank raised inter alia, disputes under the 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in which Sri H.G. Bhave on 26th September, 1994 passed an award regarding payment of pension by the respondent/defendant no.1 bank to its employees upon their retirement and providing for periodic revision in the quantum of pension admissible on the basis of rise in price index to all the retired employees of the respondent/defendant no.1 bank. Subsequently on 20th November, 1997 a Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) was executed between the respondent/defendant no.1 bank by its erstwhile management and the employees’ association, represented by All India Grindlays Bank Employees Association, under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the said Act, 1947 and in furtherance of Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 wherein an interim settlement on pension was arrived at whereby there was an ad hoc interim increase in the quantum of pension to all retired employees irrespective of their date of retirement. The said interim agreement was valid till 31st December, 1998. The said interim agreement also provided that employees of the respondent/defendant no.1 bank who retired on or after 1st October, 1997 would receive a retiring allowance at the rate of Rs.1400 p