2024:BHC-AUG:18334-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1884 OF 2021 All India Bank of Maharashtra Employees Federation (Through its General Secretary, Devidas S/o. Ramchandra Tuljapurkar, Age: 62 years, Occu.: Retired Employee of the Bank of Maharashtra)

having his Office at C-3, Sector N-1, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad … PETITIONER VERSUS

1. The Bank of Maharashtra (A Government of India Undertaking)

Through its Managing Directgor, Central Office, “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411 005

2. The Union of India … RESPONDENTS .…

Mr. U. M. Bodshetty, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1 .…

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 02.08.2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per – Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner before us is a trade union, which is undisputed. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B), as under:-

“B. By a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions in the like nature, i) the impugned Sub Clause (d) of the Clause 6 of the Employees Grievances Redressal Policy as approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank on 22^nd November, 2019 and as Circulated by the Bank Administration on 30^th November, 2019 vide letter No.AX1/ST/BM/Cir.93/2019-20, may please be quashed and set aside AND ii) the 1^st Respondent-Bank may please be directed to delete the impugned Clause (d) of the Clause 6 of the said Employees Grievances Redressal Policy AND (iii) further the 1^st Respondent Bank may also please be directed to modify the said Policy to allow representation/participation of Office Bearers of the Petitioner-Federation (Recognized Union) who are retired employees of the 1^st Respondent Bank.

3. The Petitioner has challenged clause 6 of the Employees Grievance Redressal Policy of the Respondent bank, approved by it’s Board of Directors on 22.11.2019 and circulated by vide communication dated 30.11.2019. The challenge is posed more specifically to Sub Clause (d) of Clause 6, which prohibits participation of retired employees of the bank in the meetings of the grievance redressal committee. By Clause 6(d), the bank has permitted only those elected office bearers of the union who are ‘in- service’ employees of the bank, to participate in the grievance redressal committee meetings. The Employees’ Grievance Redressal Committee is constituted under Clause-viii of Clause-II of the Code of Conduct and Discipline, which is a part of the Memorandum of Settlement signed with the Employees federation, dated 22.10.1988.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

4. The grievance of the Petitioner Employees Federation is limited only to Clause 6(d), by which, though a person is elected as an office bearer of the union in order to participate in the wage revision negotiations or demands negotiations and to represent the union which is the sole bargaining agent in the bank, would not be permitted to participate in the grievance redressal committee’s meetings, if he has retired from the service. The Petitioner union is relying upon a judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court dated 23.12.2022, reported in MAT 83 of 2019, Writ Petition Appeal No.29480 of 2017 (UCO Bank Vs. All India UCO Bank Officers Federation and Others), with COT No.26 of 2019 (All India UCO Bank Officers Federation and Others Vs. UCO Bank and Others).

5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner points out that the learned Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has recorded the facts of the case in paragraph numbers 4 to 10, wherein, an identical situation was brought before the Calcutta High Court. The union was aggrieved by the fact that only serving officers/employees of the union were permitted to participate in the meetings/discussions/negotiations with the management. All those who had retired, notwit