( 1 ) PETITIONER is the recognised sole bargaining trade union of the award staff of the Corporation bank. Second respondent-organisation is the sole bargaining recognised trade union of the officers working in the Corporation Bank. The employees of the bank, who are represented by the second respondent are not workmen within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'act'), nor are they members of the petitioner-union. ( 2 ) SEVERAL demands made by the second respondent concerning the service conditions and welfare of the officer-employees of the bank were the subject-matter of negotiations between the representatives of the bank and the representatives of the second respondent, held on 30-10-1998 and what were agreed, have been reduced into the Minutes of the 58th Joint Meeting (Annexure-H ). One of the items negotiated and settled at the said meeting was the fitment formula on promotion from the clerical cadre to officers cadre in JMG Scale-I (hereinafter also referred to as the 'said fitment formula' ). What is agreed at the said meeting is extracted below: "the issue was further discussed. The revised fitment formula as detailed in the Annexure-A is agreed to be implemented in respect of employees promoted to officers cadre on or after 1-8-1992". Annexure-A gives the fitment formula. e. , basic pay in the clerical cadre and the fitment at the corresponding stage in Junior Management Scale -. The method of giving effect to the said fitment is contained in paras 2 to 10 of Annexure-A to the minutes of the meeting dated 30-10-1998. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the said minutes dated 30-10-1998 insofar as it relates to the said fitment formula on promotion from the clerical cadre to officers' cadre. According to petitioner, the question relating to such fitment, on promotion from the clerical cadre to officers' cadre is a matter that has to be decided by the bank, on holding negotiations with the petitioner-union and not with the second respondent. It is also contended that the question of the fitment formula to be applied on promotion of clerical staff to officer cadre is a pending dispute between the award staff of the bank, and the bank, and therefore the petitioner alone can negotiate on the dispute and the Bank cannot reach a settlement thereon with the second respondent. It is also contended that the question of the fitment formula to be applied on promotion of clerical staff to officer cadre is a pending dispute between the award staff of the bank, and the bank, and therefore the petitioner alone can negotiate on the dispute and the Bank cannot reach a settlement thereon with the second respondent. Petitioner points out that in the 6th Bipartite settlement between the Indian Banks' Association and the workmen's unions at industrial level, it was agreed that the fitment of workmen-employees on promotion to the next higher cadre may be determined by the parties though mutual discussion (vide Clause 28) and that the said provision makes it clear that the matter was reserved for discussion and settlement between the bank and the unions representing award staff. Petitioner has therefore filed this petition and sought quashing of the said fitment formula agreed between the second respondent and the bank at their meeting dated 30-10-1998 (. e. , Annexure-A to Annexure-H) and a direction to the bank to negotiate (with the petitioner) and settle the fitment formula in respect of the employees on promotion from the clerical cadre to officers' cadre. ( 4 ) THE second respondent-organisation contends that the fitment formula arrived at relates to the pay of the employees when they become officers and does not relate to the pay of the employees when they are award staff; and consequently, any agreement relating to the fitment formula on promotion from the clerical cadre to officers' cadre is a matter that has necessarily to be negotiated and settled with the union or organisation that is representing the officers and not the award staff. It is also contended that the petitioner represents the interests of the award staff and not the interests of the officer-employees and therefore the petitioner cannot claim that it is the sole bargaining union in regard to such matters. It is also contended that Clause 4 of the memorandum of Settlement dated 6-8-1975, entered under Section 2 (p) of the Act between the management of the bank and the petitioner, in the matter of recognition of the petitioner as the sole bargaining union for award staff, is a bar to petitioner's claim. The said clause reads as follows: "in view of the fact that there is an organisation of the officers of the bank, viz. The said clause reads as follows: "in view of the fact that there is an organisation of the officers of the bank, viz. , Corporation bank Officers' Organisation, the Union further agrees that it will not agitate or espouse the cause of the officers of the bank. The union further agrees that it will not operate as a rival of the said officers' organisations of the Bank". Second respondent also contends that the fitment formula on promotion from clerical cadre to officers' cadre has always been negotiated by the second respondent and that the petitioner-union had never reached any settlement in regard to the said matter at any point of time. It is contended that as the sole bargaining recognised trade union of officer-employees it is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a settlement in regard to the said fitment formula. ( 5 ) FIRST respondent-bank contends that insofar as officer employees are concerned, the pay scales fixed by the Bank and revised by the bank from time to time are binding on the employee and no employee has any vested contractual right for promotion, or for any particular scale of pay on promotion. It is further contended that the Bank has no obligation to negotiate or arrive at a settlement in regard to fitment formula with the petitioner-union, in regard to officer-employees and the petitioner has no locus standi either to raise any demand on behalf of officer-employees or maintain a petition seeking relief regarding officer-employees. It is also contended that the second respondent is the sole bargaining agent for officer-employees of the Bank; that subject to its (Bank's) rights, the Bank has agreed to take action for implementing agreements and understanding arrived at with second respondent; and that there is no infirmity or illegality in regard to the settlement reached by it with second respondent regarding fitment formula on promotion from clerical cadre to officers' cadre. ( 6 ) THREE questions therefore arise for consideration: (i) whether the second respondent is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a settlement with the management in regard to fitment formula on promotion from clerical cadre to officers* cadre; (ii) whether the petitioner, which is an union of award staff, is entitled to challenge the fitment formula applicable to the officer-employees on promotion from clerical cadre, agreed to between first respondent-bank and second respondent-association and; (iii) whether petitioner-union, representing the award staff, entitled to negotiate and reach a settlement in regard to the fitment formula applicable to officer-employees on promotion from clerical cadre. Re: Question (i) ( 7 ) THE fitment formula in question is applicable, and is applied, at a stage when the employee is an officer, and not an award staff. When the employees to whom the fitment formula applies, are officers and not award staff, it follows that the Association or union that represents the officers will be entitled to negotiate with the management to reach any settlement in that behalf. The petitioner's assumption that it has more interest and more at stake, than the second respondent-association, in negotiating and arriving at a settlement in regard to the said fitment formula, is without basis. The second respondent is equally interested in securing the best terms to the officers who have been just promoted from clerical cadre. Second respondent represents all the officers of the bank, including those officers, who have just been promoted from the clerical cadre. It is no doubt true that petitioner-union representing the award staff, is also interested in securing an advantageous fitment formula to its members on their promotion. But the fact that the said fitment formula becomes applicable at a stage when the employees have ceased to be represented by the petitioner-union cannot be lost sight of. In fact the petitioner-union has specifically agreed at the time of its recognition as the sole bargaining union for award staff that it will not agitate or espouse the cause of officers of the bank and will not operate as a rival to the officers organisation. In fact the petitioner-union has specifically agreed at the time of its recognition as the sole bargaining union for award staff that it will not agitate or espouse the cause of officers of the bank and will not operate as a rival to the officers organisation. Hence, the agreement that has been reached between the first respondent-bank and the second respondent-association in regard to fitment formula to be applied on promotion from the clerical cadre to officers' cadre is not open to challenge by the petitioner on the ground that second respondent is not entitled to negotiate or arrive at a settlement in regard to the said fitment formula. Re: Questions (ii) and (iii) ( 8 ) IN regard to the promotion and consequential fitment formula from one cadre of workmen to another cadre of workmen, the union of workmen (award staff) will be the bargaining agent. Similarly, in regard to the fitment formula to be applied on promotion from one officer cadre to another officer cadre, the union representing the officers will be the bargaining agent. But, in regard to the fitment formula to be applied on promotions from the cadre of workmen to the cadre of officers, the union representing the workmen as also the union representing the officers will be interested. ( 9 ) IN All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association and Another v Reserve Bank of India and another, the Supreme Court held that workmen can raise an industrial dispute in regard to the terms of employment of non-workmen, in which they are vitally interested; and that in such a situation, the workmen raise a dispute about the terms of their own employment, though incidentally the terms of employment of those who are not workmen is involved. But workmen cannot take up a dispute in respect of a class of employees who are not workmen and in whose terms of employment, those workmen have no direct interest. The following observations of supreme Court are relevant: ". . . . The National Tribunal was not justified in holding that if at a future time an incumbent would draw wage in the time scale in excess of Rs. 500, the matter must be taken to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Central Government to make a reference in respect of him and the National Tribunal to be ousted of the jurisdiction to decide the dispute if referred. 500, the matter must be taken to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Central Government to make a reference in respect of him and the National Tribunal to be ousted of the jurisdiction to decide the dispute if referred. Supervisory staff drawing less than Rs. 500 per month cannot be debarred from claiming that they should draw more than Rs. 500 presently or at some future stage in their service. They can only be deprived of the benefits if they are non-workmen at the time they seek the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act". ( 10 ) THE Andhra Pradesh High Court in Andhra Bank Employees' Association v Andhra Bank limited and Others , has held following the decision in Reserve Bank's case, supra, that what should be the fitment on promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre is a question in which the person in the clerical cadre is vitally interested; and in view of it, the workmen union is entitled to agitate the question of fitment in respect of employees promoted from the clerical cadre to the officers' cadre by raising an industrial dispute under the Act. This was followed by this Court in corporation Bank Employees' Union v The Management of Corporation Bank. ( 11 ) MATTERS like promotions from clerical cadre to officers cadre and fitment formula to be applied when an employee is promoted from clerical to officer cadre, are matters in which employees in the clerical cadre (from which promotions are made to officer cadre) are vitally and directly interested; the entire award staff cannot however to be said to be interested in such matters, as there are several cadres among the award staff. But those in the top most cadre among award staff, from which promotions are made to officer cadre are directly interested in their promotional opportunities and the salary that they will get on promotion. Therefore, their union (union of award staff) is entitled to agitate, negotiate and arrive at settlements on questions which are of vital and direct interest to its members who are in the feeder cadre for promotion to the lowest rung among the cadres of officers. The petitioner did not give up or surrender this right under Clause 4 of the settlement dated 6-8-1975, when it agreed not to agitate or espouse the cause of the officers of the Bank. The petitioner did not give up or surrender this right under Clause 4 of the settlement dated 6-8-1975, when it agreed not to agitate or espouse the cause of the officers of the Bank. ( 12 ) ANY dispute or claim affecting the promotional opportunities of clerical cadre employees (to officer cadre) and the conditions of service immediately after promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre are areas where both the union representing the award staff and the union representing the officers, are interested and involved. These matters are neither 'white' where petitioner-union operates exclusively, nor 'black' where second respondent-union operates exclusively, but 'grey' where both unions can operate. These are matters in regard to which the award staff union and officers' union should act in concert so as to safeguard the interests of the employees concerned and to provide for smooth transition from clerical to officer cadre. They should avoid rivalry and should not come in the way of any genuine and beneficial settlement, fought and obtained by one of them. The management also will do well to act in consultation with both, rather than one to the exclusion of the other, in such matters, in the interest of industrial peace and harmony. ( 13 ) WHERE there is no recognised bargaining union representing officers, the position is clear. The union representing the award staff can negotiate and settle disputes and claims relating promotional avenues and opportunities and fitment formula applicable on promotion, from clerical to officer cadre. This is evident from the decision in Reserve Bank's case, supra. But the question as to what is the effect of a settlement validly arrived at, in matters relating to officers (such as fitment formula applicable to employees promoted as officers from clerical cadre), by the sole bargaining officers' union, is not considered in Reserve Bank's case, supra. Where there are two bargaining unions, one of officers and another of award staff, and the subject is one falling under the grey area in which both have bargaining power, unless both agree, settlement by the management with one, will not estop the other union from further agitating the matter. If the terms of settlement reached by the management with the Officers' Union are beneficial and adequate, the other union (union of award staff) should act with maturity and responsibility, and avoid re-agitating the matter merely to show one-upmanship. If the terms of settlement reached by the management with the Officers' Union are beneficial and adequate, the other union (union of award staff) should act with maturity and responsibility, and avoid re-agitating the matter merely to show one-upmanship. Even if the matter is re-agitated by the other union, the management can stand firm and refuse to change the terms of settlement already reached. The Courts and Tribunals will also be slow and reluctant to permit another union to re-agitate a settled matter, unless obvious detriment to the employees or fraud/collusion/mala fides, is made out. ( 14 ) THEREFORE, the position can be summarised thus: (a) In regard to the fitment formula to be applied on promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre, the officers' union as also the award staff union are entitled to negotiate and arrive at a settlement with the management. (b) The management should endeavour to consult or negotiate with both unions (of officers and award staff) in regard to the fitment formula to be applied on promotion from clerical cadre to officer cadre. But there is no legal bar to the management to negotiate and enter into a settlement with either of them, or with only one of the unions. (c) Settlement by the management with one union, in regard to such fitment formula, will not bar the other from agitating the matter. But Courts and Tribunals, shall be reluctant to reopen any settlement already reached with the other union, unless fraud/collusion/mala fides or patent detriment to the employees concerned is made out. It therefore follows that petitioner-union has no locus standi to seek quashing of the settlement reached between first respondent and second respondent in regard to the said fitment formula. But if the employees in clerical cadre are not satisfied with the settlement, the petitioner is not estopped from espousing the cause of its members by raising an industrial dispute in regard to the same matter. This anomaly will be a price payable by the management, for negotiating with only one union in regard to such a matter. ( 15 ) WITH these observations these petitions are disposed of. Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought.