LexCHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. versus ALL ORISSA STATE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHAIRMAN, ST A TE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. v. ALL ORISSA STATE BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. JULY 31, 2003 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] The Rules For Verification of Membership And Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, 1994; Rule 24: A B Review Petition filed by Bank against the judgment of the Supreme C Court conferring rights of representation on unrecognized minority associations-Held, denial of right of representation to the unrecognized minority association would not amount to discrimination when such right was not even conceded to the majority association-Since Central Government is the appropriate Government in respect of petitioner-Bank, Rules made by the D State Government not binding on the Bank-Attention of the Court was not adverted to the existing elaborate grievance redressal machinery-Review Petition allowed, sine crucial issues were not considered Respondent No.I-Association, an unrecognized minority association of bank officers had succeeded in a public interest litigation before the E High Court praying for conferment of certain rights as per Rule 24 of the Rules For Verification of Membership And Recognition of Trade Union Rules. High Court issued a Writ of Mandamus to the Review Petitioner- Bank to implement the principle underlying Rule 24. Aggrieved bank's appeal before this Court was dismissed. Hence the present Review F Petitions. It was contended for the Review Petitioner that the denial of certain rights to the minority unrecognised associations by the bank which were not conceded even to recognized majority associations, would not amount to discrimination, but if conferred, would amount to reverse discrimination G against recognised Unions; that since efficacious grievance settlement machinery was in existence, High Court was not justified in importing the principle from inapplicable Rule 24 to override the existing one; that these submissions have been lost sight of in the impugned judgment of this Court; and that if such a principle is made applicable in one zone, it would 27 H 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A create serious repercussion all over. On behalf of tlie respondent, it was ~ubmitted that in the absence of any statutory provision to determine the representative character of Union/ Association, the Supreme Court and the High Court had rightly conferred such rights on minority associations facilitating them to hold discussions B with the employer. Allowing the Review Petition and appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no Common Law right of a trade union to represent its members, whether for purposes of collective bargaining or C individual grievances of members. This is an inroad made into the Common Law by special statutes. Either the special statute operates proprio vigore, or it does not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is undisputed that Rule 24(a) on which the Respondent association and the High Court placed reliance, has no application. This is accepted even · D in the judgment under review. Nonetheless, on general principles of equity, justice and fair play the judgment under review holds that the minority trade union should also be afforded an opportunity of ventilating individual grievances of its members. It appears that the attention of this Court was not adverted to the elaborate grievance procedure machinery which was in existence and the details are placed on record. (33-E-G) E F 1.2. It cannot be held that denying a right of representation to the minority union, when such a ~ight is not conceded even to the majGrity union, amounts to discrimination requiring redressal at the hands of the High Court. It is also not possible for the High Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 to direct an employer to bring into existence such a system of representation in grievance procedure. In the absence of arbitrariness or discrimination, there was no scope at all for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (33-H; 34-A-B) 1.3. The appropriate Government in respect of Review Petitioner- G Bank is the Central Government and the rules made by the State Government cannot be enforced against it. Since these crucial issues were not considered in the judgment under review, on consideration of all aspects of the matter, the impugned judgments are set aside. [34-C-D) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition (C) Nos. 1111- H 1112 of 2002 in Civil Appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.