Back
1989 Supreme(Mad) 290
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATASWAMI
S Association Etc - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Staff Union, State Bank of India OfficersState Bank of India, Union of India Etc - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 237 etc./88 and Writ Appeal No. 683/88
Decided On : 24 April 1989
The extension of check-off facility to all registered unions, whether recognized or not, is not contrary to any statutory provision, binding rule, or established public policy, and is permissible under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Headnote:
CHECK-OFF FACILITY - EXTENSION TO UNRECOGNISED UNIONS - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - PUBLIC POLICY - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 - SECTION 7(2)(KKK) - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SCHEDULE V, CLAUSE 2(B) - TRADE UNIONS ACT, 1926 - SECTION 14(A) - BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1955 - SECTION 18 - CODE OF DISCIPLINE - NATIONAL LABOUR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA COMMUNICATION DATED 11TH JANUARY 1988 - WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABILITY - MANDAMUS - AGGRIEVED PERSON - INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE OPTION - PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS - CHECK-OFF FACILITY EXTENSION TO ALL REGISTERED UNIONS - VALIDITY - BANK MANAGEMENT DECISION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Recognized unions in banks challenged the decision of bank management to extend check-off facility to all registered unions, whether recognized or not, pursuant to a communication from the Government of India. The petitioners contended that the check-off facility should be restricted to recognized unions only, as per the Code of Discipline and the recommendation of the National Labour Commission. They argued that extending the facility to all registered unions would amount to unfair labour practice and undermine the strength of recognized unions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the check-off facility is not a statutory right and is granted to individual employees based on their voluntary written request. The court found that there was no statutory provision or binding rule restricting the extension of check-off facility to recognized unions only. The court also noted that the Code of Discipline, though non-statutory, does not prohibit the extension of check-off facility to other unions. The court further held that the recommendation of the National Labour Commission, which favored restricting the facility to recognized unions, was reviewed and superseded by a subsequent National Labour Conference, which favored extending the facility to all registered unions.
Issues: 1. Whether the check-off facility can be extended to unrecognised unions. 2. Whether the extension of check-off facility to all registered unions is contrary to the Code of Discipline and the recommendation of the National Labour Commission. 3. Whether the extension of check-off facility to all registered unions amounts to unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Whether the Government of India's communication dated 11th January 1988 directing banks to extend the check-off facility to all registered unions is valid. 5. Whether the writ petitions filed by recognized unions are maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The check-off facility is not a statutory right and is granted to individual employees based on their voluntary written request. 2. There is no statutory provision or binding rule restricting the extension of check-off facility to recognized unions only. 3. The Code of Discipline, though non-statutory, does not prohibit the extension of check-off facility to other unions. 4. The recommendation of the National Labour Commission, which favored restricting the facility to recognized unions, was reviewed and superseded by a subsequent National Labour Conference, which favored extending the facility to all registered unions. 5. The extension of check-off facility to all registered unions does not amount to unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The Government of India's communication dated 11th January 1988 directing banks to extend the check-off facility to all registered unions is valid. 7. The writ petitions filed by recognized unions are maintainable, but the petitioners have not established any right to seek the relief of mandamus or certiorari to prevent the extension of check-off facility to all registered unions.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by recognized unions challenging the extension of check-off facility to all registered unions were dismissed. The court held that the decision of the bank management to extend the facility to all registered unions was valid and did not suffer from any infirmity requiring judicial intervention.
Venkataswami, J.
In all the writ petitions though the prayers differ in form, the ultimate relief sought in substance and essence is the same. Hence, by consent, all the writ petitions are taken up together and the counsel on all sides advanced common arguments. In the circumstances, we dispose of all these writ petitions by this common order.
2. The Writ Appeal No. 683 of 1988 is preferred against an interim order in W.M.P. No. 341 of 1988 in W.P. No. 237 of 1988. In view of the final disposal of all the writ petitions including W.P. No. 237 of 1988, no separate order is necessary in W.A. No. 683 of 1988.
3. The common question raised in all these writ petitions is whether check-off facility can be extended by the respective Bank management to unrecognised unions. The petitioners in all these writ petitions contended that the check-off facility which had been hitherto extended only to recognised unions should not be extended to unrecognised unions, even though they are registered unions.
4. Let us now set out the case of the petitioners. Before that, it may be noted what is meant by check-off facility. At the specific written request of an employee, the Bank management collects/deducts the monthly subscription from his salary payable to the union named by him. This facility is called as check-off facility. Such facility was given to the employees of recognised union in the Banks who are the respondents before us. Pursuant to a communication from the Government of India dated 11th January 1988, the respondents/Banks have decided to extend the check-off facility to all the registered unions, whether they are recognised or not. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Banks, the recognised unions who have been exclusively enjoying the check-off facility have filed these writ petitions, either for quashing the decision of the Bank management to extend the check-off facility or to restrain the Bank management from extending such facility to the unions other than recognised one.
5. Mr. Dolia of M/s. Aiyer & Dolia, advanced leading arguments in support of the contentions that the check-off facility should not be extended to unrecognised unions. The principal contentions are the following : The code of discipline in industry evolved during the 15th National Conference in Nainital covers Banking industry as well. In the 16th Session of the said conference held some time in May, 1958, certain guidelines for recognising an union were evolved. According to the said guidelines, the union operating in a Circle representing the majority of the employees or atleast 25 per cent. of them alone should be given recognition. Such recognised union enjoys certain facilities such as to negotiate with the management on behalf of the employees etc. The National Labour Commission in paragraph 20-70 of Chapter XX of its report suggested that the check-off facility if to be provided should be restricted to the recognised unions only. Overlooking this recommendation of the National Labour Commission, if the check-off facility is to be extended to all the registered unions, irrespective of recognition, that will amount to the management committing unfair labour practice within Clause 2(b) of Schedule V to the Industrial Disputes Act. As a matter of fact, the Industrial Bill that has been introduced in the Parliament in fact restricts the rules of the trade union to provide 10% minimum membership for a period of six months. From this it is clear that the intention of the legislature was to discourage the mushroom growth of number of trade unions and thereby to achieve an industrial peace among the trade unions. The communication dated 11th January 1988 circulated to the Banks by the Government of India has no legal basis to direct the Bank management to obey the same. If at all the Government of India can issue directions to the Banks, it could be only under Section18 of the Bank of India Act, 1955 and the said power cannot be invoked without consulting
