AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.,"Granting of cash receipts on Bank/Government accounts upto and including Rs.10,000/-.
2.,"Passing of Cheques and other debits to constituent''s accounts, drafts, government payments for amounts upto and including Rs.10,000/- in
cash and Rs.15,000/- in transfer transactions. Powers imply passing and scrolling of the instruments paid by the Single Window Operator as
also initialling of pass books which come to him for passing of withdrawals.
3.,Issuance of Travellers Cheques and encashment of Travellers Cheques and Gift Cheques.
4.,Verification of transactions of vernacular signatures/ endorsements over the instruments at the risk and responsibilities of the Bank.
5.,Responsible for all cash directly handled by them.
6.,Responsible for proper exercise of the receiving and passing powers.
7.,"Sanction of overdraft to a customer against his (customer''s) own TDR/STDR/RD issued by the branch upto Rs.10,000/- as per the laid
down instructions.
8.,"Encashment of Current Account cheques presented by the customers upto and including Rs.10,000/- and by third parties upto Rs.2,000/-
9.,"Encashment of Saving Bank Cheques/Withdrawal forms presented by the drawers themselves upto and including Rs.10,000/-
10.,"Encashment of Savings Bank cheques (but not withdrawal forms) presented by third parties upto and including Rs.2,000/-
11.,"Encashment of Rupee Travellers Cheques upto and including Rs.10,000/- for each transaction.
Office is directed to list the matter before the concerned Court for the disposal in accordance with law.""",
One Matheswaran, another shirker like the petitioner, wanted to join the bandwagon and filed W.P.M.P. No.207 of 2014 in the writ petition",
for impleading himself as respondent for playing second fiddle to Viswanathan. The said W.P.M.P. was dismissed on 17.02.2015 by a learned,
single Judge of this Court, aggrieved by which, the said Matheswaran is said to have filed a writ appeal and the same is said to be pending.",
Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Matheswaran submitted that this Court should not take up this case until the disposal",
of the writ appeal filed by Matheswaran.,
This Court rejected their argument on the ground that Matheswaran''s appeal was in connection with the dismissal of his impleading petition and,
on that score, this writ petition, which is of the year 2003, cannot be kept pending. Though this Court had dismissed the impleading petition of",
Matheswaran, yet, in the interest of justice, this Court permitted the learned counsel for Matheswaran to advance his arguments in support of the",
writ petition.,
Heard Mr. Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.K.Singh, learned counsel for Matheswaran, Mr.P.D.Audi Kesavalu, learned",
counsel for the first respondent, Mr.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the second respondent, Mr.K. Tamilarasan, learned counsel for the third",
respondent union and Mr.K.Raju, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent.",
Mr.Seshadri, counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned circulars will not pass muster the terms of the Sastri and",
Desai Awards and therefore, they are per se illegal and deserve to be quashed.",
According to Mr. Seshadri, the two Awards are ''Law'' under Article 13 as they were gazetted by the Government under the ID Act and",
therefore, a mere bipartite agreement between the Management and the union, cannot, in any way, dilute the terms of the Awards. His main",
contention was that if the impugned circulars are implemented, the award staff may have to face disciplinary action for lapses committed during the",
course of duty, thereby making them vulnerable. In support of this contention, he cited the case of Matheswaran as an example.",
Mr. Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the Management raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the impugned circulars are a sequel",
to the settlement dated 12.04.1999 entered into between the Management and the union under Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the ID Act and in the,
absence of the petitioner challenging the settlement, he has no locus standi to challenge the consequence of the settlement. Mr.Chandrasekar",
further contended that the petitioner cannot challenge the settlement, as he was also a part of the union that signed the settlement and he cannot",
challenge it after resigning from the union, as he would be estopped from challenging it and he would not have locus standi. Either way, when the",
settlement has not been challenged, the impugned circulars which are the offshoot of the settlement cannot be the subject matter of challenge.",
The third respondent union has filed a counter, of which, paragraph no.12 reads as follows:",
I deny the averments in para 18 which states that the post of Senior Assistant and Special Assistant are managerial in nature and that the post",
of Sr.Assistant and Special Assistant are normally Supervisory and Managerial in nature. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner on a,
misconception that as per these impugned circulars, he will become Supervisory Official with managerial and Supervisory powers. Firstly, the very",
fact that these posts are covered by the impugned Settlement shows that it belongs to the category of ''Workman'' and hence covered by the,
Industrial Disputes Act. Secondly, the contention is wholly incorrect, denied because in order to obtain a post which is Supervisory or Managerial",
in nature, a Clerical Staff has to go through certain rigorous tests which includes a written competitive examination and an interview, apart from the",
fact that one should have the necessary educational qualifications, length of service etc. I categorically state that the position of Sr.Assistant and",
Special Assistant will not transport the petitioner who is an Award staff as a managerial functionary by some automatic method. An Award staff,
cannot dream of becoming a managerial functionary unless he goes through rigorous exercise of not only being qualified as per the bank''s norms,",
having the necessary qualifying length of service and getting through a rigorous examination, interview and performance appraisal. Unless these",
steps have been crossed, an award staff cannot go to any supervisory or managerial category.""",
From a conspectus of the facts obtaining in this case, it is beyond cavil that the award staff can never become officers without they clearing the",
departmental examinations that are conducted in the banking sector. The petitioner is under an illusion that if he is asked to take up additional,
responsibilities, he might be divested of the protection available under the ID Act as award staff.",
In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner suffers from a misconceived illusion borne out of his reticence to take up additional",
responsibilities. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the Management, in the absence of challenge to the Memorandum",
of settlement dated 12.04.1999, its offsprings cannot be subjected to judicial challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The",
settlement can be challenged by another union by raising an industrial dispute before the appropriate authority and seeking for its adjudication by,
the concerned Tribunal and not by way of a writ petition, because in writ proceedings disputed questions of fact cannot be satisfactorily",
adjudicated.,
In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the second respondent",
Bank and Rs.5,000/- to the third respondent Union, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,",
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.,