JUDGMENT Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. 1. The administrative circulars issued by the State Bank of India, are under challenge in this writ petition, being not in conformity with the provisions of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act as also on the ground of being violative of the provisions of the State Bank of India Act 1955. 2. Whereas the management contended that for the sake of gearing up discipline, productivity, cast-effectiveness and customers' service, the administrative circulars were issued from time to time with an idea to inculcate in the employees, a sense of responsibility, awareness and discipline, the petitioners contended that issuance of the administrative circulars are wholly without jurisdiction and in any event ultra vires the provisions of the State Bank of India Act. 3. Section 21 of the Act of 1955 provides that there shall be at each place where the State Bank has a local head office, a Local Board and Section 21(B) of the Act provides that the Local Board shall consist of the Area Head or Registrar of the Local Head Office for which the Board has been constituted and shall exercise all powers and perform all functions and duties of the State Bank in relation to any business that may be carried on or transacted by the bank under sub-section (1) of section 32 and other sub-clauses of section 33 such powers and functions and duties as may be conferred to by the Central Bank. 4. The General Staff Regulations has delegated to the Local Board certain powers and functions of the Central Board in relation to staff and employees of the State Bank. 5. Section 43 of the Act of 1955 provides for appointment of such members of Officers, advisors and employees of the State Bank of India as the Bank considers necessary or desirable. Further power has been given to the Bank to determine the terms and conditions of the appointments and service. Sub-section (2) of section 43 empowers officers advisors and employees of the State Bank to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be entrusted or delegated to them by the Central Board. 6. Section 49 of the Act of 1955 confers powers on the Central Government or the Central Board to make Rules by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purpose of the Act. 7. 6. Section 49 of the Act of 1955 confers powers on the Central Government or the Central Board to make Rules by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purpose of the Act. 7. Section 50 of the Act confers powers on the Central Board of the State Bank of India to make regulations not inconsistent with the Act for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 50 provides that the Central Board shall be competent to frame regulation and to provide for the duties and conduct of officers, advisors and agents of the State Bank. In other words under the powers conferred by section 50 of the Act of 1955 the Central Board of the State Bank framed regulations called the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955. By the said regulations provisions have been made for appointment and dismissal of employees of the State Bank and also for exercise of general control over the employees of the State Bank of India. 8. The principal contention as against the administrative circulars issued by the management is that apart from the Central Board no other authority has any right to change the service conditions of the employees of the bank. It was, however, conceded that the authority of the Board under the specified heads can be delegated to other authorities. But in the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration no such delegation was effected and as such the issuance of the administrative circulars is bad on the face of it and ultra vires the provisions of statute. 9. The petitioners contended that the leave rules of the employees of the State Bank of India have been modified by the Sastri Award which has a binding force between the employer and the employees. As regards the leave rules Sastri Award provides as follows:- "(i) An employee who desires to obtain leave, to obtain leave of absence, other than casual leave, shall apply in writing to the Manager of any other officer appointed for the purpose, such application for leave shall be made not less than one month before the date from which the leave is to commence, except in urgent cases or unforeseen circumstances including illness when it is not possible to do so. The Manager or the officer empowered by him in this behalf shall issue orders on such application as soon as practicable and in cases of an urgent nature immediately. If the leave asked for is granted, an order showing the date of commencement of the leave and the date of which the employees will have to resume duty shall be issued to the employee. (ii) If an employee after proceeding on leave desires an extension thereof, he shall make an application in writing to the Manager or other officer appointed for the purpose. Such application shall state the full postal and telegraphic address of the employee and shall be made in sufficient time to enable the management to consider the application and send a reply to him before the expiry of the leave desired to be extended. A written reply either of the grant or refusal of extension shall be sent to the employee at the address given by him if such reply is likely to reach him before the expiry of the leave originally granted to him. (iii) Gazetted holidays (that is Bank holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act) other than Sundays, shall not be prefixed or affixed to any leave without the sanction of the competent authority having been first obtained. An employee who overstays his leave (except under circumstances beyond his control for which he must tender a satisfactory explanation) shall not be paid his pay and allowances other than house rent allowance based on pay i.e. basic pay, officiating and special allowances, if any, last drawn for the period he overstays and shall further render himself liable to such disciplinary action as the management may think fit to impose. (iv) The first day of an employees' leave is the working day succeeding that upon which he makes over charge. The last day of an employee's leave is the working day proceeding that upon which he reports his return to duty. (v) The competent authority may require an employee who has availed himself of leave for reasons of health to produce a medical certificate of fitness before he resumes duty even though such leave was not actually granted on a medical certificate. (vi) Employees on privilege, sick, maternity or quarantine leave shall be entitled to allowances." 10. (v) The competent authority may require an employee who has availed himself of leave for reasons of health to produce a medical certificate of fitness before he resumes duty even though such leave was not actually granted on a medical certificate. (vi) Employees on privilege, sick, maternity or quarantine leave shall be entitled to allowances." 10. Though it is true that after the Sastri Award by reason of certain further disputes matter was referred to National Industrial Tribunal (Banks' Disputes) and the Award thereof commonly known as Desai Award has been made applicable to the employees• of the State Bank of India except with regard to the leave rules that is to say provisions in Sastri Award in regard to leave rules were allowed to be continued without any hindrance. The petitioners further contend that in August 1973 it came to light that in March 1967 the management of State Bank of India has entered into a bipartite agreement with the Union of the employees and the agreement substantially alters leave rules to the detriment of the employees of the State Bank of India. Circular No. 55 of 1973 according to the petitioners is wholly contrary to the rights of the employees as determined under the Sastri Award. In any event Mr. P.K. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioners contended that since the changed leave rules are substantial in nature it amounts to an alteration of the service conditions and as such the provisions under section 9(a) of the said Act ought to have been complied with and in the absence of such compliance the leave rules cannot and ought not to be allowed to be enforced by the writ court. 11. Mr. Amalesh Mitra appearing for the State Bank of India however, contended that there is no alteration of the condition of service and the bank management is within its power of suitably add to or after the leave rules for the purpose of effective discharge of the obligations cast upon bank under the Statute. Question of compliance of section 9(a), in fact, it is contended, does not and cannot arise. The changed leave rules were adopted in line with the Sastri Award and no complaint ought to be entertained by the courts in that direction. In any event, Mr. Question of compliance of section 9(a), in fact, it is contended, does not and cannot arise. The changed leave rules were adopted in line with the Sastri Award and no complaint ought to be entertained by the courts in that direction. In any event, Mr. Mitra contended that by reason of Circular No. 55 of 1973 employees who have intimated their options within the stipulated date as mentioned in the circular they should be deemed to be continued to be governed by the Sastri Award Leave Rules. Changed leave rules as contained in the settlement of 1967, could not be nor can be made applicable to those who opted under the Sastri Award Leave Rules. 12. Considering the true purport of the circular, in my view, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the changed leave rules by reason of express option given to the members of the staff to opt for being governed under the Sastri Award Leave Rules. Writ Courts have the power to go into the question in the event of any contravention of the statutory provisions or well accepted principles or usage affecting the rights of the employee. But the wrong or injury caused by reason of an act of the management ought not to be mere fanciful. By reason of clear option for being governed under He Sastri Award leave rules the petitioners cannot be heard to complain that there was in fact changed leave rules affecting the conditions of service of the employees of the bank. Adjustments in the administrative affairs of the Bank in accordance with the exigencies of the situation cannot be termed to be an alteration of the service conditions provided of course perversity and mala fides may render the adjustment as bad and illegal. Considering the facts as narrated above, in my view, question of any arbitrariness or perversity or mala fides do not find place as regards the changed leave rules. (This view finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.T. Khanzode & other vs. Reserve Bank of India & another, AIR 1982 SC 917 . 13. The next contention of Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the petitioners is in regard to the punctuality of the members of the staff of the State Bank under Circular No. 52 dated 28.8.1975, Circular No. 61 of 1975 and Circular No. 67 of 1975. 13. The next contention of Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the petitioners is in regard to the punctuality of the members of the staff of the State Bank under Circular No. 52 dated 28.8.1975, Circular No. 61 of 1975 and Circular No. 67 of 1975. While Mr. Chatterjee contended that the Chief Manager of the Calcutta Local Head Office has had no jurisdiction to issue the circulars noted above and the same imposed new and harsh conditions adversely affecting the service conditions of the employees of the Stele Bank of India, Mr. Mitra submitted that keeping in view the working hours of each category of employees the management issued the administrative directions to maintain punctuality based mainly on the provisions of Sastri Award. 14. Strong criticisms were made by the petitioners as regards the withdrawal of the attendance register immediately after 10 A.M. Admittedly, however, a 10 minute cushioning period is allowed and as such withdrawal of attendance register after the expiry of the said cushioning period, in my view, cannot be said to be unreasonable or harsh. On an enquiry from the court the attendance registers were produced wherefrom it appeared that one attendance register done not contain more 35 names at the most and in some cases even lessor than that. Furthermore, the circulars manifest that the bank would provide as many attendance registers as were or are necessary for the purpose of enabling the petitioners to subscribe their attendance signature within the cushioning period. The attendance register provided at 5 P.M. has been stated to be attrocious. In my view, this submission of the petitioners has also no foundation in the context of the observation in the Sastri Award. In paragraph 309 the Tribunal observed:- "We wish to make it clear that in providing for a cushioning period of half an hour immediately after the closing of normal hours of work for which there is to be no over-time payment, it is not out intention that this half an hour should become really a normal extension of actual hours of work." 15. While it is true that the staff members are not required to work beyond 5 P.M. on any working day and beyond 2 P.M. on Saturday and there cannot and ought not to be an extension of the working hours as observed in the Sastri Award quoted above but providing the attendance register at 5 P.M. to enable the staff members to note down the time of departure cannot be termed to be an extension of the normal hours of work. In that view of the matter the administrative direction to stay beyond 5 P.M. only for the purpose of recording a time of departure cannot be termed to be attrocious neither the same can be said to violate the provisions of Section 9(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the premises, the second contention of Mr. Chatterjee also fails. 16. As regards the issue in regard to the change in the existing cash department procedure I need not deal in detail the submissions made in that regard since the matter in issue is fully covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of G.B. Laxminarayanan vs. Chairman, State Bank of India & other, (an unreported case Nos. 3981 and 3982 of 1975). The Madras High Court observed:- "This court is not concerned with the question as to whether there is any necessity or justification to bring about a change in the procedure to be adopted in the Cash Department. The Court is concerned only with the question whether the procedure sought to be introduced contravenes any statutory provision or whether it brings out a change in the existing terms and conditions of service applicable to Cashiers as contended for by the petitioners. A perusal of the Cash Department Memorandum of procedure, however, shows that the Cashier's responsibility ceases as soon as the cash is counted and entrusted to the Head Cashier or the Deputy Head Cashier, except in case of coins. The Madras High Court after considering various provisions and the Memorandum of Procedure came to a conclusion that:- In view of these provisions, I am not able to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the new procedure imposes more onerous responsibility on the cashiers. The Madras High Court after considering various provisions and the Memorandum of Procedure came to a conclusion that:- In view of these provisions, I am not able to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the new procedure imposes more onerous responsibility on the cashiers. His contention that he is responsible for the cash counted and bagged by him until the cash is finally disposed of has been founded to be untenable except in tile cases of small coins. It is not open to the petitioners to say that even in respect of small cash, the head cashier should take up the responsibility as soon as the bag of coins is handed over to him. In the nature of things, he cannot be excepted to go on counting the coins in each bag before be accepts the bag for the purpose of depositing in the vault. It is not therefore possible to uphold the petitioner's objection that impugned memorandum of procedure seeks to impose onerous responsibility on the cashier. The petitioners' further contention is that the impugned memorandum of procedure is not in accordance with the provisions contained in the Treasury Rules which are statutory. But a perusal of the Central Government Compilation of the Treasury Rules, Volume 1, part XIV shows that it is based on executive instructions and therefore part XIV of the said rules which contains the procedure are said to have been followed by the State Bank of India before the introduction of the new procedure, not being statutory the same can be modified by the management. It is not possible to say that one set of executive instructions which were followed till now cannot be superseded by another set of executive instructions." I am in respectful agreement with the findings of the Madras High Court and as such as the third contention of Mr. Chatterjee also fails. 17. The next contention of Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the writ petitioners is in regard to the overtime allowance. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that by reason of exigencies of situation arising from errors and commissions some of the staff members would invariably have to stay beyond the working hours and the refusal to pay overtime allowance on that score is highly arbitrary and irregular. This aspect of the matter has been set at rest by the Sastri Award in particular paragraph 310 of the Award. This aspect of the matter has been set at rest by the Sastri Award in particular paragraph 310 of the Award. The Award categorically provides that the workman who makes such mistake or errors has necessarily to rectify the same and any overtime work on his part would not entitle him to earn an extra allowance for the same. Employers asked to rectify the errors committed by them during the working hours cannot, in my view, claim a special allowance if the same necessitates his stay in the bank beyond the working hours. Question of any arbitrariness, in my view, in refusing to pay overtime allowance for the same does not and cannot arise. On the contrary, payment of such an overtime would be contrary to all known principles of law, equity and justice and a proposition not conducive for the commercial interest of the country. 18. It was next contended by Mr. Chatterjee that restriction on personal visitors and personal telephone calls during the working hours affect the rights of the employees and as such are unreasonable in nature and the court ought to set aside such restriction. I am, however, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Chatterjee. Restriction on personal visitors and personal telephone calls can by no stretch be termed to be affecting the rights of the employees, neither discouragement to such personal visitors of telephone calls can be said to be harsh imposition of a new condition of service. Personal visitors during the working hours, in my view, is contrary to the working conditions of a banking institution. 19. The grievance as regards to the submission of medical bills above Rs. 50/- and the maintenance of a diary have been long withdrawn and discarded and as such it does not require further consideration. 20. The contention of Mr. Chatterjee that transfer of staff members specially the cashier from the cash department to a clerical work, in my view, is also utterly misconceived and cannot be said to be arbitrary or is contrary to the service conditions of the employees of the bank. Paragraph 308 of the Sastri Award provided that many types of work of a bank cannot be carried out within a fixed system and within fixed hours and the bank must have the liberty of action in that direction. Paragraph 308 of the Sastri Award provided that many types of work of a bank cannot be carried out within a fixed system and within fixed hours and the bank must have the liberty of action in that direction. The work of Cash book Writers, Day Book Writers, Supplementary Book Writers, Internal Audit, Pass Book Writers etc. can conveniently be attended at different points of time and in my view, the bank management would be within its right to relax the rigidity in the observance of the usual hours of work at specified jobs whenever and wherever it is necessary or convenient or desirable to do so. As such staggering of working hours for certain categories of employees according to its convenience cannot be termed to be a change in the service condition nor can be said to be affecting any right of the employees. 21. The contention •in regard to the introduction of mechanical device does not need any further consideration since there is no introduction of the same as yet neither the same in contemplation in very near future. 22. Mr. Chatterjee next contended that there is no obligation on the part of the employees to carry out the direction of the management in dealing with the customers after the business hours and the insistence on the part of the management to do so amounts to extension of the working hours and in any event unjust and arbitrary. The business hours are fixed by the Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of customers' service and it has nothing to do with the working hours of the employees of the bank. In my view, it is within the management's prerogative to use its staff including the cashiers if is so necessary beyond the customers' business hours. The banks are service-oriented organizations and in the event of a very great emergency if the management directs customers' handling shortly after 2 P.M. on any working day or shortly after 12 noon on a Saturday, it can not be said to unjust or illegal. Disobedience to the same, in my view, amounts to a misconduct within the meaning of Service Regulations. 23. The contention of Mr. Chatterjee in regard to the transfer from one desk to other or from one work to other cannot also be sustained. There is no element of arbitrariness or harshness. Disobedience to the same, in my view, amounts to a misconduct within the meaning of Service Regulations. 23. The contention of Mr. Chatterjee in regard to the transfer from one desk to other or from one work to other cannot also be sustained. There is no element of arbitrariness or harshness. Without a definite allegations of mala fides in the petition in my view, law courts would not be justified in entertaining such a charge. 24. As regards the recognition of the Union the same is fully covered by the Sastri Award and paragraph 588 of the Sastri Award is very apposite in that context. 25. The last contention of Mr. Chatterjee is in regard to the record of mistakes. Mr. Mitter appearing for the banks submitted that this is a corrective measure and not to penalize the employees, neither the same cannot be said to be unfair and unjust more so by reason of the management's prerogative to take disciplinary action against the defaulting workmen. I am, however, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Mitter. A person cannot and ought not to be asked to keep the records of the errors or omissions or mistake for facilitating the bank management to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. Such a step, in my view, is contrary to the basic principles of equity, fair play and justice and as such the office order dated 10.9.1975 forming part of Circular No. 61 of 1975 as regards the maintenance of a register to record errors and mistakes, cannot be sustained and as such is declared as invalid and of no effect and the same is thus set aside and quashed. The Rule, therefore, succeeds to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.