AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent nos. 2/The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata, 2A/The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata and respondent no. 3/The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata and/or each one of them to forthwith cancel, set aside, withdraw and/or rescind the impugned directions of the respondent authorities as contained in communication dated 21.05.2025 and the conciliation proceedings held on 25.02.2026, 23.06.2026 and 14.07.2026 and also the conciliation notice dated 17.07.2026 of the respondent no. 3.
This Court, vide it’s order dated 07.08.2026, directed as follows:-
“Learned senior counsel Mr. De appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos. 2,2A and 3 are taking steps which is against the interest of the petitioner herein, as they are trying to hamper the petitioner's PAN India transfer policy. It appears that the petitioner's principal allegations is against the said respondents who are the authority concerned in the present case.
A notice dated 17.07.2026 is placed before this Court wherein it appears that a "joint discussion" has been fixed today by the respondent no. 2 at 3 p.m. with a view to resolve the dispute.
Considering the said contents of the notice, the petitioner is directed to cooperate within the said meeting and the authority concerned shall conduct the proceedings, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the interest of all the parties.”
In course of hearing learned senior counsel Mr. De, appearing for the petitioner has placed the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the Conciliation Officer wherein the Conciliation Officer has held as follows:-
“In this context union further argues that out of 22 issues strike notice dated 16/03/2026 only issue number 30 pertaining to rotational transfer is pending before the CGIT CUM Labour Court. In their reply, management admitted this fact that the matter is still pending with the Dy. CLC Kolkata and CGIT Kolkata. Therefore, the management is ought to state that as to how they could implement rotational transfer despite admitting that the matter is pending in adjudication in CGIT CUM Labour Court Kolkata. Additionally, added that they implement rotational transfer despite admitting that the matter of applicability of transfer policy, signed with the majority union (AIUBEA) under Section 18(1) of the ID Act 1947 upon non-AIUBEA members including the members of this federation is pending before the Dy. CLC Kolkata.
As both the parties at this moment have completely divergent views and matter could not settle even after efforts of the Conciliation Officer, the instant dispute results in "Failure of Conciliation". Both parties to submit their side of final comments on 16/09/2026 in good faith on all issues on merits so that FoC. report could be issued under Section 53(4) of the Code.”
Considering the said order of the Conciliation Officer, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the said Conciliation Officer, who shall now proceed in accordance with law.
The next contention of Mr. De is that he has challenged the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central) Kolkata along with three other prior orders.
From the said impugned order dated 14.07.2026 it appears that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by the observation of the said authority to the extent of his observation which is as follows:-
“Parties present as per attendance sheet attached. The union representative stated that for an amicable settlement the Joint Forum of Union Bank Employees Federation is agreeable for rotation transfer within the station. But no rotation transfer should be there outside station and all such transfer orders issued outside station are to be cancelled. The Management representative submitted their written submission today which is taken on record and a copy of the same is handed over to the union.
As per the Conciliation Officer views, the settlement (Staff Circular No. 7333 dt. 31.12.2020) which had been mentioned by the Management is not a settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation under Section 18(3). But mere an bipartite agreement arrived which will be binding only to the signatories who are parties to the agreement. However, the current union was the minority union and is not a signatory to that agreement. It is advised to the Union Bank Headquarter Mumbai either do a settlement under concilialtion proceedings so that it will be binding on all the parties / Unions or sign a separate bipartite/tripartite agreement/settlement with the Joint Forum of Union Bank Unions. If the Management had done the settlement under conciliation proceedings or tripartitre settlement with the majority union, please provide a copy of the settlement or they have registered that settlement, the copy of the registered settlement and details of the Conciliation Officer should be provided It is advised that management should settle this issue with the union as proposed herein above.”
Petitioner relies upon the following two judgments in support of his contention:-
2016 SCC OnLine Cal 5441 (Hooghly Dock and Port Engineers Limited Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner ©,Govt. of India & Ors.) (Paragraphs 22 and 25)
1984 (Supp) SCC 663 (Balmer Lawrie Workers’ Union , Bombay & Anr. Vs. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. & Ors.) (Paragraph 25) and submits that the said observation of the authority concerned is not in accordance with law and is also against the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
On perusal of the said order, this Court finds that the issue before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Deputy Labour Commissioner both relate to the rotational transfer of the employees.
Written notes have been placed by the petitioner herein. It appears that after the order dated 14.07.2026 the Assistant Labour Commissioner, being the Conciliation Officer has called the hearing on 07.08.2026, vide a notice dated 17.07.2026 regarding the strike notice dated 16.03.2026, which also relates to the rotational transfer.
Admittedly, the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide order dated 14.07.2026 had passed the order directing the management to settle the issue of rotation transfer with the Union who had asked for an amicable settlement.
It appears that the after the said order has been passed, the order now placed before this Court dated 07.08.2026 is the final order in respect of the dispute relating to rotation transfer. It also appears that the observation of the Deputy Labour Commissioner in the order dated 14.07.2026 was only trying to amicably settle the issue and no observations made in the order dated 14.07.2026 has been taken into consideration by the Conciliation Officer cum Assistant Labolur Commissioner and as such prima facie no prejudice has been caused to either parties for the observation of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, of which the petitioner has claimed.
This Court on taking the order dated 07.08.2026 as a failure report disposes of the writ application with the direction that the authority concerned shall now proceed in accordance with law on their finding that the conciliation has ended in a failure.
WPA 20110 of 2026 stands disposed of.
Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.