The General Secretary, All Goa Co-op. Bank Employees Federation, Gurudutt Building, 3rd Floor, Panaji-Goa vs Industrial Tribunal, Bicholim Urban Co-op.Bank Ltd. and Workmen

A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 12.09.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Panaji in case No. I.T. 41/1996 answering the reference against the petitioner.

The petitioner espoused the cause of 72 workmen, who according the petitioner, were terminated illegally with effect from 12.06.1995 by the respondent No. 2. According to the Management, they were appointed illegally by the Managing Director of the Bank without seeking approval of the Registrar of the Co-operative Society which was mandatory.

The dispute regarding the termination of 72 workmen, was referred for adjudication u/s 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. The Industrial Tribunal held that the bank being a Federation and not registered body under the Trade Union Act, 1926, had no locus standi to file the petition challenging the termination. On merits, the Industrial Tribunal held that the appointments of 72 workmen, were made without following the procedure and as such, were illegal. The Tribunal held that the approval of the Registrar which was required, was not obtained prior to the appointments of the said workmen and the appointments which were made by the Managing Director without following due procedure for the appointment of the workmen, were not legal and consequently, the Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner.

Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner has no locus standi, is patently unsustainable. The learned Counsel further submitted that the appointments of 72 workmen were made after following the prescribed procedure and as such the Tribunal has erred in answering the reference against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel since no enquiry was held before terminating the workmen, the termination of workmen, was patently illegal and, therefore, liable to be set aside. He further submitted that after termination of the workmen, 28 workmen were reappointed in the year 1995 and, therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in answering the reference against the petitioner. The learned Counsel further submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner has no locus standi, is patently illegal in as much as individual workman is entitled to raise the dispute regarding his termination in terms of Section 2A of the Act. Lastly, Mr. Dessai submitted that in the event, it is held that the petitioner has no locus standi, liberty be granted to the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to workmen to raise industrial dispute regarding the termination.

Per contra, Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the workmen and consequently, to file the present petition. In support of the submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the Division bench Judgment of this Court in National Organisation of Bank Workers'' Federation of Trade Union Versus Union of India and Others reported in II L.L.J. 537. In so far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Keval Bana Gopal Mali and Ors Versus Dhule Municipal Council reported in 1998 2 CLR 842 and submitted that since the appointments were patently illegal, the question of holding enquiry against the workmen, did not arise and therefore, the Reference Court is justified in answering the reference against the petitioner. He invited my attention to the findings given by the Tribunal that the appointments of 72 workmen were made without following the procedure which is mandatory before appointing the workmen. The learned Counsel further submitted that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned award by this Court.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record and the judgments relied upon on behalf of the Management, I find no merit in the present petition. In so far as the locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, Mr Sardessai is justified in placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of National Organisation of Bank''s (supra) in which it has been clearly held that the Federation which is not a registered body under the Trade Union Act, 1926, cannot raise industrial dispute and for the very same reason, it is not competent to file a writ petition. In so far as leave sought by the petitioner to withdraw the petition and to avail remedy of raising industrial dispute by workmen is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same does not deserve to be granted in as much as before the Tribunal, the Management had specifically taken the plea that the petitioner had no locus standi to raise the dispute. The individual workmen decided to pursue the reference and now having failed, want this Court to grant leave to individual workmen to raise industrial dispute. The conduct of the workmen does not entitle them to get the discretionary relief.

In so far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the perusal of the impugned award discloses that the Industrial Tribunal has recorded the finding that the appointments of 72 workmen whose services were terminated, were not made by following the procedure which was mandatory before making the appointments. The bank had not sought approval of the Registrar which was required to be taken before making appointments and the appointments were made by the Managing Director of the bank. This finding, in my opinion, is a finding arrived at upon proper appreciation of materials on record and, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court.

Mr. Sardessai is right in relying upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Keval Bana Gopal Mali''s case (supra) in which this Court held that the appointments made through back door, are not liable to be protected. In so far as the argument advanced by Mr. Dessai that no enquiry was held by the bank before terminating the services of the workmen is concerned, I find no merit since the termination of the workmen was on the ground of illegal appointments made by the Managing Director of Bank. As such the question of holding enquiry before terminating the services of the workmen, does not arise. In so far as the argument advanced by Mr. Dessai that in view of Section 2A of the Act, the reference was maintainable is concerned, I find no merit in it. If individual workman was aggrieved by his / her termination, the individual workman could have raised the industrial dispute in terms of Section 2A of the Act. The same having not been done, the petitioner now, cannot be permitted to urge this ground on behalf of the workmen whose cause it has espoused. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present petition and, hence, the petition is summarily rejected.