Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 625 (MAD)

KANCHEEPURAM CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK STAFF UNION v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

2002-07-15

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2002
ORDER : K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—In Writ Petition No. 7059 of 1995, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank relating to its proceedings, dated April 15, 1995, and to quash the same, and for mandamus to direct the third respondent not to resort to direct recruitment to the post of Senior Assistants (are designated as Assistants) and Assistant Managers, without complying with the provisions of Sections 9-A and 33(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. In Writ Petition No. 7060 of 1995, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to refer the industrial dispute between the petitioner-union and third respondent regarding the filling up of the post of senior Assistants, Assistant Manager, under the second proviso to Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. A preliminary objection which is taken by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner-union does not represent the cause of any of the employees of the third respondent-bank and therefore, not entitled to maintain the writ petition. 4. In this context, the petitioner has filed before me a set of documents relating to the various notices issued by the petitioner-union calling for strike and other demands and a reply affidavit is also being filed to the effect that the union continues to enjoy the patronage of the workers belonging to the third respondent union. Therefore, I do not find any ground to sustain the objection taken on behalf of the third respondent. 5. Now coming to the merits of the writ petition, the only grievance of the petitioner is that though the proposed policy of recruitment was a deviation from the existing practice of making appointment to the said cadres by promotion, the management wanted to introduce appointment by direct recruitment. Therefore before implementing the said policy, the management should have given notice as required u/s 9-A. I do not propose to go into the merits of the contention raised by both parties. It is represented that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the proposed policy has not yet been implemented. It is also represented that the dispute which went before the Conciliation Officer ended in a failure' report, dated December 29, 1995. 6. It is represented that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the proposed policy has not yet been implemented. It is also represented that the dispute which went before the Conciliation Officer ended in a failure' report, dated December 29, 1995. 6. Therefore it follows that without concluding the dispute between the parties, the management cannot be permitted to proceed further with the proposed change in the recruitment policy. 7. In the context of the prayer in Writ Petition No. 7060 of 1995, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the receipt of the failure reports, the Government has passed orders on January 7, 1998, not forwarding the disputes for reference on the ground of pendency of the writ petition. It is needless to point out that whenever an industrial dispute is raised by either of the parties, and a report of failure has been submitted by the Conciliation Officer the Government is duty bound to refer the dispute to the appropriate authority Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. 8. With the result, I am inclined to pass the following order: (1) Writ Petition No. 7059 of 1995 is allowed subject to the liberty of the management to proceed afresh after the conclusion of the dispute between the parties. (2) Writ Petition No.7060 of 1995, is allowed with direction to the Government to refer the dispute to the appropriate authority Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, viz., the dispute between the petitioner-union and the third respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. With the above observations, the writ petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos. 11346 and 11347 of 1995 are also closed.