The withdrawal of additional facilities under Leave Travel Concession is a policy decision that can be taken by the employer and does not necessarily require providing an opportunity to the employees. Natural justice principles should be applied with reference to the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records from the 1st respondent relating to the Circular dated 10.04.2014 bearing ref No. DP:PAD:149:2014 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to grant the benefit of Leave Travel Concession / Home Travel Concession as was granted prior to the issuance of the impugned Circular.)

1. The writ on hand has been instituted, questioning the validity of the Circular issued by the 1st respondent dated 10.04.2014, withdrawing the Leave Travel Concession granted to the Officers of the Union Bank of India to travel abroad.

2. The 1st writ petitioner is the Union Bank of India Officers Association, Tamil Nadu and the 2nd writ petitioner is A.P.Venkatasubramanian.

3. The 1st writ petitioner is affiliated to the All India Union Bank Officers Federation. The Federation is affiliated to the All India Nationalised Banks' Officers' Federation. 633 Officers are working in the State of Tamil Nadu in the Union Bank of India and they are the members of the 1st respondent / The Union Bank of India Officers' Association.

4. The 1st respondent is a Nationalised Bank vide Banking Company Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1970. The petitioners state that in view of the demands made by the Officers and Association to extend the benefit of Leave Travel Concession to travel abroad, the respondent / Bank on 31.12.1983 communicated its decision to extend the benefit of Leave Travel Concession to travel abroad. Accordingly, the said benefit to travel abroad by availing the Leave Travel Concession is being enjoyed by the officers of the 1st respondent / The Union Bank of India. However, surprisingly through the impugned order dated 10.04.2014, the respondents have withdrawn the Foreign Travel Concession granted to the Officers of the respondent / Bank. The said decision was taken based on the Circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance and also by the Indian Bank Association.

5. The petitioners state that the impugned communication is without jurisdiction and the decision was taken unilaterally by the Bank and therefore, in violation of the principles of the natural justice.

6. The petitioners state that the respondent / Bank is an independent entity and the Board of Directors has not taken the decision independently to discontinue the Leave Travel Concession / Home Travel Concession to travel abroad and therefore, the impugned Circular is unilateral and bad in law. The petitioners are enjoying the benefit of Leave Travel Concession to travel abroad for several years and therefore, it became a part of their service condition. Thus, the 1st respondent cannot discontinue the same without hearing the petitioners. It is contended that the 1st respondent / Bank ought to have discussed the issue with the petitioners' Association, which is a recognized Association before taking any such decision. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the Leave Travel Concession was granted pursuant to Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. The benefit to travel abroad has also been granted by the 1st respondent and the said benefit is continuously being enjoyed by the Officers of the Union bank of India for several years. While so, withdrawal of the said concession unilaterally by the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioners were not even heard before passing the impugned order.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by stating that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and further, the Regulation 44 of the Union Bank of India (Officers') Service Reg