FED. OF BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNIONS & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 135 · Decided: 01-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
FED. OF BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNIONS & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5570 of 2014)
MARCH 01, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
The Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous
provisions) Scheme, 1970 – Appellant No.1 is the association of
various Staff Unions of the employees working in the Respondent
No.2-Bank – 1970 Scheme framed under the Banking Act – s.9(3)
of the Banking Act provides for composition of Board of Directors
as to who can be nominated as Directors in the Board of Directors
– Clause (a) to (i) of s.9(3), Banking Act sets out various categories
from which one Director from each of such categories is nominated
in the Board of Directors – Clause(e) deals with category of
workman/employee Director whereas clause(f) deals with category
of officer/employee Director – Clause 3(2)(iii) of the Scheme deals
with disqualification of workman/employee for being nominated as
Director – Respondent no.2 called upon the appellants to furnish
panel of three workers/employees for being nominated as Director–
Appellants sent panel of three names vide letter dtd. 08.06.09 –
Rejected vide letter dtd. 10.10.2009 – Appellants filed writ petition
in the High Court for quashing letter dtd. 10.10.2009 and
declaration that Cl.3 (2) (iii) of the Scheme, be struck down as
being ultra vires the Constitution – Dismissed – On appeal, held: So
far as the challenge to letter dtd. 10.10.2009 and enforcement of
appellants’ letter dtd. 08.06.2009, i.e. (Relief Nos.(a) & (b) in the
writ petition) is concerned, both the reliefs are rendered infructuous
as employees/workers whose names were recommended in letter dtd.
08.06.2009 have retired long back – Further, it would be clear from
Clauses (e) & (f) of s.9(3) of the Banking Act that both the categories
of employees are different – One is worker/employee category and
the other is officer/employee category – It is for the legislature to
decide as to what qualifications/disqualifications be prescribed for
various categories of the employees for their nomination on the
post of Director – Worker is governed by 1947 Act whereas the
officer is governed by separate service rules – Both these categories
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 135
135
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
of employees cannot be equated with each other, nor can be placed
at par for providing equal qualification or/and disqualification for
their nomination – Art.14 applies inter se two equals and not inter se
unequals – Present case falls under the latter category – High Court
rightly dismissed the appellants’ writ petition, upholding Clause
3(2)(iii) of the Scheme as legal – Trade Unions Act, 1926– Banking
Companies(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/
1980 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – Constitution of India
– Art.14.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  It would be clear from a perusal of clauses (e)
and (f) of Section 9(3) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 that both the
categories of employees are different- one is worker/employee
category as defined under Section 9(3)(e) and the other is officer/
employee category as defined under Section 9(3)(f) of the Act. It
is for the legislature to decide as to what qualifications and
disqualifications should be prescribed for various categories of
the employees for their nomination on the post of Director.  There
lies a distinction between the worker and the officer. The former,
i.e., worker is defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and is governed by that Act whereas the latter,
i.e., officer is not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act but is
governed by separate service rules.  Both these categories of
employees, therefore, cannot be equated with each other and
nor can be placed at par for providing equal qualification or/and
disqualification for their nomination as a Director in the Board of
Directors. Article 14 of the Constitution applies inter se two equals
and not inter se unequals. The case at hand falls under the latter
category and, therefore, reliance placed on the principle enshrined
under Article 14 of the Constitution by the appellants is wholly
misplaced. The nominee worker/employee has only a right under
the Act to be appointed as Director from the category of worker/
employee in terms of Section 9 (3)(e) of the Act provided the
concerned nominee whose name is recommended by the Union
fulfills 

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