LexMANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK versus SECRETARY, COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL ( -- CO-OPERATIVE BANK v. SECRETARY, COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR. B APRIL 23, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] ' •. .).- c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.10/Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 14, 142, 226, 227: Jllegal Strike in a Public Utility Service/Bank-Settlement between Management & Union-Some employees not only continued the strike but prevented other employees from resuming duty-Disciplinary proceedings initiated and they were placed under suspension-Inquiry- errant workmen did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings-They D were found guilty of offences as charged-Authority passing of an order of punishment against them by awarding stoppage of increment for 1-4 years with cumulative effect and not payment of salary during the period of -t < suspension-Industrial dispute-Reference-Dismissed by Labour Court holding that charges levelled against the errant workmen proved-Challenge E to-Partly allowed by Single Judge of High Court by selling aside the order of punishment of stoppage of increments-Appeal partly allowed by Division Bench of the High Court setting aside the order passed by Single Judge directing payment of interest on arrears of increments-On appeal, held, Award passed by Labour Court was perfectly just, proper and required no ' interference-High Court, in exercise of power of Judicial Review under F Articles 2261227 should not have interfered with the well considered award 'f - so passed by Labour Court. Single Judge as also Division Bench of the High Court were not justified in granting benefits to errant workmen-However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the limited benefit granted to them in exercise of power under Article 142 is not interfered with. G Article I 4-Discrimination-Jllegal strike-Industrial Dispute-Labour Court passing an award punishing only some workmen by directing stoppage .) of increment against them-Award whether arbitrary and unreasonable- Held : No, the workmen in question constitutes a separate class distinct and separate from other workmen as they did not resume the,ir duties in terms of H 430 MAN. OF COIMBATORE DIST. CENT. CO-OP. BANK 1·. S£m'., COIMBA1URE DIST. CE1'T. CO-OP. BAfl<'K EMP. ASSN. 431 ---- ~ settlement arrived at between the Management & the Union but others had A resumed their duties-Hence they cannot claim similar benefits on ground of protection under Article 14. Doctrines : Doctrine of proportionality-Applicability of-Discussed. B Employees Association of a Co-operative Bank-appellant gave a 'strike ,. ' notice' proposing to go on strike as certain number of employees were -\ suspended and their salary was withheld by the Management. The strike-call was declared illegal as the notice was not in consonance with the provisions c of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Union was informed accordingly. The employees however, commenced strike from April 17, 1972. On April 19, 1972, a notice was issued by the Management to the Union informing that the workmen should join duties by April 22, 1972 by tendering unconditional apology. Later a settlement had been arrived at between the Management and the Union; consequently, 134 workmen gave up 'strike call' and resumed work. D 53 workmen, however, continued their illegal strike and acts of misconduct. i- The illegal acts of errant workmen affected the work of the Bank very badly. > Appellant-Bank alleged that not only these workmen did not join duty and continued illegal and unlawful strike, but they also prevented other employees from. resuming duty and threatened them with dire consequences. Disciplinary proceedings were, therefore, initiated against such workmen, they were placed E under suspension and inquiry was instituted. Inspite of notices, the workmen did not participate in disciplinary proceedings and remained absent. The Management was, therefore, constrained to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry ex parte against them. They were held guilty of the charges and an order of punishment by (I) stoppage of increment for 1-4 years with cumulative F effect; and (ii) non-payment of salary during the period of suspension was passed against them. The workmen joined duty but preferred to file appeal which was dismissed by the Executive Committee. Aggrieved, the workmen raised an industrial dispu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.