IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court rightly held that Staff Circular No. 91/1997 is contrary to Rule 24 of verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Union Rules, 1994 and it has not conceded any right to the non-recognized Union/Association to participate in discussions relating to general issues concerning all workmen.

Headnote:Verification of Membership and Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994-Rules 18 and 24-Criteria for recognised union and Rights of unrecognised union-Respondent No. 1 is a registered Trade Union under Trade Unions Act but is not a recognised association under Rule 18 of verification Rules-Writ petition to set aside para 2 of staff circular No. 91 of 1997 denying rights to non-recognized trade union which are available to them under Rule 24 of the verification Rules-Allowed by High Court-Review Petition against by management-Allowed in part-Judgments of High Court showing that rights and privileges vested in a non-recognized Association are limited to espousing the grievances of individual matters and not to participate in discussion relating to general issues concerning all workmen-Management appealing to Supreme Court apprehending that High Court has given to non-recognized association right of collective bargaining-Whether correct? (No)-Whether there is any infirmity in the judgments of the High Court? (No)-Appeals dismissed.
       Held : With growth of industrialization in the country and progress made in the field of trade union activities the necessity for having multiple unions in an industry has been felt very often. Taking note of this position power has been vested in the management to recognize one of the trade unions for the purpose of having discussions and negotiations in labour related matters. This arrangement is in recognition of the right of collective bargaining of workmen/employees in an industry. To avoid arbitrariness, bias and favouritism in the matter of recognition of a trade union Rules have been framed laying down the procedure for ascertaining which of the trade unions commands support of majority of workmen/employees. Such procedure is for the benefit of the workmen/employees as well as the management/employer since collective bargaining with a trade union having the support of majority of workmen will help in maintaining industrial peace and will help smooth functioning of the establishment. Taking note of the possibility of multiple trade unions coming into existence in the industry, provisions have been made in the Rules conceding certain rights to non-recognized unions. Though such non-recognized unions may not have the right to participate in the process of collective bargaining with the management/employer over issues concerning the workmen in general, they have the right to meet and discuss with the employer or any person appointed by him on issues relating to grievances of any individual member regarding his service conditions and to appear on behalf of their members in any domestic or departmental enquiry held by the employer or before the conciliation officer or labour court or industrial tribunal. In essence, the distinction between the two categories of trade unions is that while the recognized union has the right to participate in the discussions/negotiations regarding general issues affecting all workmen/employees and settlement if any arrived at as a result of such discussion/negotiations is binding on all workmen/employees, whereas a non-recognized union cannot claim such a right, but it has the right to meet and discuss with the management/employer about the grievances of any individual member relating to his service conditions and to represent an individual member in domestic inquiry or departmental inquiry and proceedings before the conciliation officer and adjudicator. The very fact that certain rights are vested in a non-recognized union shows that the Trade Union Act and the Rules framed thereunder acknowledge the existence of a non-recognized union. Such a union is not superfluous entity and it has a relevance in specific matters relating to administration of the establishment. It follows, therefore, that the management/employer cannot outrightly refuse to have any discussion with a non-recognized union in matters relating to service conditions of individual members and other matters incidental thereto. It is relevant to note here that the right of the citizens of this country to form an association or union is recognized under the Constitution in Article 19(1)(c). It is also to be kept in mind that for the sake of industrial peace and proper administration of the industry it is necessary for the management to seek cooperation of the entire work force. The management by its conduct should not give an impression as if it favours a certain sections of its employees to the exclusion of others which, to say the least, will not be conducive to industrial peace and smooth management. Whether negotiation relating to a particular issue is necessary to be made with representatives of the recognized union alone or relating to certain matters concerning individual workmen it will be fruitful to have discussion/negotiations with a non-recognized union of which those individual workmen/employees are members is for the management or its representative at the spot to decide. At the cost of repetition we may state that it has to be kept in mind that the arrangement is intended to help in resolving the issue raised on behalf of the workmen and will assist the management in avoiding industrial unrest. The management should act in a manner which helps in uniting its workmen/employees and not give an impression of a divisive force out to create differences and distrust amongst workmen and employees. Judged in this light the contents of paragraph 2 of the Staff Circular No. 91 of 1987 clearly give an impression that the management has decided at the threshold before being aware of the nature of the dispute raised that its representatives should have no discussion at all with office bearers of the non-recognized association. Such a circular is not only contrary to the express provision in Rule 24 but also runs counter to the scheme of the Trade Union Act and the Rules. (Para 15)
       The judgment of the High Court disposing of the writ petition and the order disposing of the review petition filed on behalf of the management make the position amply clear that the rights and privileges vested in a non-recognized association are limited to espousing the grievances of individual members relating to their service conditions and representing them in domestic or departmental enquiries held by the employer and not proceeding before the conciliation officer, labour court, industrial tribunal or arbitrator. The High Court has not conceded any right to the non-recognized union to participate in discussions relating to general issues concerning all workmen. In our considered view there is no serious illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court. Therefore, no interference in the matter is called for. Accordingly, the appeals are dimissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. (Paras 17 and 18)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals filed by the Chairman, State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai and the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office at Bhubaneshwar are directed against the judgment dated 24.11.1998 of the High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 8863/1997 and the Order dated 23.7.1999 disposing of the petition for review of the said judgment, Civil Review No. 15/99, filed by the appellants. The operative portion of the judgment dated 24.11.98 reads as follows :

"For the foregoing reasons we set aside paragraph 2 of the Staff Circular No. 91 of 1987 if the same is still in force and direct the opposite parties to confer such rights on the petitioner-Association as are available to them under Rule 24 of the Verification Rules.

The Management of the State Bank of India are directed to keep in mind the observations made in this judgment while dealing with its employees, officers and their Unions, recognized or unrecognized."

3. The High Court, allowing the review petition in part by the order dated 23rd July, 1999, issued the following directions :

"For the aforesaid reasons, in partial modification of the judgment dated 24.11.1998, we pass the following order :-

(i) We set aside paragraph 2 of the Staff Circular No. 91 of 1987 if the same is still in force and direct the management of the Bank to permit the writ petitioners-Association to meet and discuss the grievances of any individual member of the petitioner-Association relating to his service conditions in a regulated prescribed manner and further to appear on behalf of its members in any domestic or departmental enquiry or in any proceeding before the Conciliation Officer, Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or any other Tribunal.

(ii) The management of the Bank will be at liberty to take such suitable disciplinary action as permissible in law if any individual employee or officer or office bearer of any Union or Association including the writ petitioner Association, recognized or unrecognized, indulge in any coercive or intimidating or indisciplined acts or behaviour.

(iii) We also direct the management of the State Bank of India to keep in mind the relevant observations made in the judgment dated 24.11.1998 and also in this order while dealing with its employees, officers and their Unions, recognized or unrecognized.

The review is allowed in part to the extent indicated above."

4. In the circular, Staff Circular No. 91 of 1987 dated 13-11-1987 which was under challenge in the writ petition, it was stated that the bank does not enter into any dialogue etc. with a non-recognized union/association; that the bank has recognized the All India State Bank Officers Association for this circle; the said rights and privileges cannot be extended to any other association of the Officers in the same circle.

5. Para 2 of the Staff Circular No. 91 of 1987 which was struck down by the High Court, reads as follows :

"Having regard to very serious developments as brought out in our Staff Circular Nos. 84 and 90 of 1987, it will not be in order for any Bank functionary to enter into any dialogue or accept any representation from the office-bearers of the unrecognized All Orissa State Bank Officers Association in this Circle, even in matters pertaining to individual grievances. In case the representatives of the above unrecognized Association resort to any coercive methods like dharna, gherao etc. decisions obtained, if any, under such circumstances would be deemed to have been taken under duress and such decisions shall not be binding on the Bank. Needless to add that the cases of officers indulging in such unwarranted actions would be dealt with sternly and suitable disciplinary action would be taken against them."

6. From the judgment under challenge it is clear that the controversy raised in the case relates to the rights of the All Orissa State Bank Officers Association (a non-recognized as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 624

Cases Referred (1)