BANK EMPLOYEES UNION versus RAJARSHI SHAHU GOVT. SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLHAPUR

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 06-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION
v.
RAJARSHI SHAHU GOVT. SERVANTS
CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLHAPUR
(Civil Appeal No. 2328 of 2021)
JULY 06, 2021
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, K. M. JOSEPH AND
B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946: s. 38(2) –
Standing order stipulating the age of retirement of the employees,
applicble to employees of the Co-operative Bank – Locus of
Registered Trade Union to file application u/s. 38(2) for alteration/
modification of the standing order – Held: Original standing order
which mandated 55 years as the age of retirement, was changed by
consent of both employer and employees, to 58 years, twice, by
means of Settlements of 2004 and 2010 which culminated in an
award by the Industrial Court – Ministerial duty of implementing
the settlement was on both the employer and the employees –
Application was moved before the Commissioner of Labour by the
Registered Trade Union, which could and should have been joined
in by the employer – Thus, any technical objection as to a registered
union having no locus to file an application u/s. 38(2), cannot be
accepted – Order passed by the Industrial Court, which was based
on the locus standi of the Registered Trade Union, is set aside, as
also the judgment of the High Court – Locus standi.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is clear that the original standing order which
mandated 55 years as the age of retirement, was changed by
consent of both employer and employees, to 58 years, not just
once, but twice, by means of Settlements of 2004 and 2010,
solemnly entered into under section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. These settlements were also sanctified by an award
of the Industrial Court. Ultimately, the Ministerial duty of
implementing the settlement was on both the employer and the
employees. It so happened that the appellant moved an application
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 503
503
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
before the Commissioner of Labour. The said application could
and should have been joined in by the employer, and in this
backdrop, it is clear that any technical objection as to a registered
union having no locus to file an application under Section 38(2) of
the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, cannot be
accepted. Therefore, the order that has been passed by the
Industrial Court, which was only based on the locus standi of the
appellant, is set aside and held that the Industrial Court ought to
have given some teeth to its own Judgment and held that the
very appeal which was filed before it be dismissed for the very
good reason that the bank should not be allowed at the stage of
implementation of two settlements (culminating in an award)
solemnly entered into between itself and its employees, to now
turn around and question the locus standi of the appellant. The
judgment of the Industrial Court and, consequently, the judgment
of the High Court is set aside. [Para 8][508-B-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2328
of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2014 of the High Court
at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6558 of 2013.
Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jane Cox, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Ms.
Karishma Maria, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short question that arises in this appeal is as to whether the
appellant – Registered Trade Union - had locus to prefer an application
to modify a standing order that applies to the employees of the respondent
under Section 38(2) of The Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
The brief facts necessary in order to dispose of this appeal are as follows:-
The original standing order with which we are concerned, and
which stated the age of retirement of the employees of the bank, reads
as follows :-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
“22(7) Every employee shall retire from service on attaining
the age of 55 years, Extension not exceeding one year at a
time or three years in all may be given at the discretion of the
president.”
3. By two Agreements dated 11.01.2004 and 21.02.2010 which
were settlements under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act
entered into between the respondent and its employees, it was agreed
vide Clause 16 of the 2004 settlement and Clause 15 of the 2010 settlement
that the retirement age would now be 58 years. A reference was made
under Section 73A of The Bombay Indu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.