IMPORTANT POINT
The Conciliation Officer lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for disputes involving non-workmen, as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, a Trade Union representing the officers of the Federal Bank, is before this Court seeking to declare that the conciliation officer has no jurisdiction underSection 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of disputes which arise between the officers and the 2^nd respondent-Bank. The petitioner also seeks to declare that no industrial dispute exists or is pending before the 1^st respondent-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) based on the charter of demands submitted by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent-Bank, empowering him to issue notice of conciliation.

2. The petitioner states that salary of the officers of the Bank is determined through negotiated settlements entered into between the Indian Banks Association representing the employers and the All India Bank Officers Confederation to which the petitioner-Association is affiliated. Other terms and conditions of service of officers of the Bank are governed by the Federal Bank Limited (Officers Service) Rules. The settlements arrived at between the IBA and the Confederation are not settlements under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. According to the petitioner, the right of the officers to go on strike to compel the 2^nd respondent to pursue their demands is recognised by the service rules applicable to the Bank officers. However, the petitioner received Ext.P2 letter dated 24.01.2023 from the 1^st respondent-Conciliation Officer proposing to hold joint discussion in respect of an alleged industrial dispute raised by the petitioner. The joint discussion was scheduled to be held on 27.01.2023.

4. It was alleged that an industrial dispute was raised by the 2^nd respondent-Bank in the Samadhan Portal of Government of India which is registered as ID No.3002450 dated 23.01.2023. The petitioner thereupon submitted a reply stating that the Association represents the officers category of employees who are not workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the 1^st respondent does not have jurisdiction to initiate conciliation proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. The petitioner informed the 1^st respondent that the United Forum of Bank Unions has proposed a strike on 30.01.2023 and 31.01.2023. The 2^nd respondent approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.2979/2023 seeking to restrain the petitioner from resorting to strike on 30.01.2023 and 31.01.2023. This Court passed Ext.P4 interim order dated 27.01.2023 as prayed for by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent did not show any interest in discussing and finding solutions to the issues raised by the petitioner-Association. Now, the 1^st respondent has issued Ext.P7 notice dated 08.06.2023 requiring the petitioner to attend a conciliation meeting proposed to be held on 26.06.2023.

6. The petitioner states that all the members of the petitioner-Association fall under the non-workmen category and do not answer the definition of “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The provisions of the Act are not applicable to the employees in the non-workmen category. The members of the petitioner-Association are not workmen. The 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate conciliation proceedings. The petitioner therefore seeks to set aside Exts.P2 and P7 notices.

7. The 1^st respondent-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) filed counter affidavit. The 1^st respondent submitted that when the 2^nd respondent filed a complaint through “Samadhan” Portal, the 1^st respondent issued notice for conciliation. The only motive of the 1^st respondent in issuing notice was to maintain peace in Public Utility Service like Federal Bank. The 1^st respondent has acted well within the jurisdiction and parameters of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. The 2^nd respondent-Bank resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 2^nd respondent stated that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner conducted lightning/illegal strike on 3