The termination of services occurred before the initiation of the industrial dispute, and therefore, Section 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not applicable. The court directed the Government to refer the dispute for adjudication within one month from the date of receipt of the failure report.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 27.01.2023 in W.P.No.21077 of 2022.)

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 27.01.2023 in W.P.No.21077 of 2022 in so far as not directing the 2nd respondent to submit the failure report to the 1st respondent and further not directing the 1st respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication and restricting the order of status quo protecting the employment only till the conciliation is over before the 2nd respondent, instead of extending the status quo till the dispute is finally adjudicated by the Industrial Adjudicator and consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer the dispute regarding the regularization before the competent Industrial adjudicator and further direct the respondent no.3 to maintain status quo with regard to the employment of the 359 members of the appellant till the dispute is finally adjudicated by the competent Industrial adjudicator.)

Common Judgment:

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

Before going into the depth of the issue, we are reminded of the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundara Rao (Dead) & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, holding as under:

"Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington vs. British Railways Board (1972) 2 WLR 537. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases."

2. These Writ Appeals have been filed against the order dated 25.09.2019 made in W.P.No.21077 of 2022.

2a . For the sake of brevity, the parties would be referred to as per the nomenclature referred to in the Writ Petition as the “Writ Petitioner/Sangam”, “3rd respondent/Bank” and the “respondents 1 & 2”.

3. The 3rd respondent / Bank has come up with W.A.No.515 of 2023, seeking to quash the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein a direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to conclude the conciliation proceedings within three months, by ordering status quo till then. In W.A.No.619 of 2013, the Writ Petitioner/Sangam has sought to quash the order, inasmuch as status quo was ordered to be maintained only till the conclusion of the proceedings without any specific direction to the 2nd respondent to submit the conciliation failure report to the 1st respondent and also to refer the dispute for adjudication before the competent Industrial Adjudicator.

4. Brief facts of the case as put forth by the 3rd respondent / Bank:

i) The members of the Writ Petitioner/Sangam, having an occupation with income, were engaged as Freelance Business Correspondents as per the earlier circular of the Reserve Bank of India and subsequently, yet another system was approved by the Reserve Bank of India to hire Corporate Business Correspondents in the place of Freelance Business Correspondents;

ii) The decision to change over the nomenclature was taken on 01.02.2022 by the Reserve Bank of India, with an advice to individual branches to put an end to the engagement of the Business Correspondents. The erstwhile Business Correspondents, who had formed a Society/Sangam under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, raised an Industrial Dispute on 01.03.2022, in which, the Conciliation Officer, while issuing conciliation notice, directed the Bank to maintain status quo, on the ground that the cessation of engagement would be in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short I.D.Act