Judgment :- The petitioner prays for a writ of declaration to declare that the action of the respondent Bank in withdrawing the holidays as was in practice up to 2001 without issuing a notice, till the issue is adjudicated or settled mutually by means of a settlement, grant substitute holiday for the days worked. 2. The petitioner submits that the respondent Bank is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. There are about 3700 number of employees working in the Southern Region as officers and their union represents about 3600 number of officers. The petitioner submits that till 2001, the Tamilnadu Government was declaring public holidays under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 including the Banks. For the first time in 2002, the Tamilnadu Government issued two sets of holidays one for the Commercial banks and one excluding the commercial banks. The petitioner submits that the holidays for Tiruvalluvar day, Uzhavar Thirunaal, Telugu New Years Day, Tamil New Years Day, Milad-e-Nabi, Vijayadasami have been declared as holidays by the Bank till 2001. The above said holidays have become a customary practice and it is a service condition and the bank cannot alter without issuing notice. Though initially, the Tamil New Years Day was not declared as holiday, subsequently it has been declared as a holiday for the year 2002. The petitioner-Association have made representations not to alter the service conditions relating to important festival holidays. However, puja holidays were reduced and the holidays falling on Sundays have been deprived and the offices/Branches working on Sundays were not given holidays. 3. Petitioner's request to restore the holidays was not fruitful and the employees worked on Thiruvalluvar Day and Uzhavar Thirunaal under protest reserving their right to claim compensatory holiday. 4. No counter has been filed in this writ petition and there is no representation for the respondent, even though the writ petition was taken up today for orders. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel submits that holidays for festival days is a matter of right and in view of the established practice, the same has become recognised holidays and a customary privilege. Therefore, the respondent cannot alter the holidays without due notice and consultation with the workers. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel submits that holidays for festival days is a matter of right and in view of the established practice, the same has become recognised holidays and a customary privilege. Therefore, the respondent cannot alter the holidays without due notice and consultation with the workers. Learned counsel also relied on the following decisions in support of his contention that such a condition of service which has become a customary privilege cannot be altered to the detriment of the workers without proper notice:- i) LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS (PRIVATE), LTD. v. SHANKAR PRASAD (1993-3-LLN-538) ii) R.PAULSAMY v. UNION OF INDIA (1999(4)SUPREME COURT CASES 415) iii) TAMILNADU ATOMIC POWER EMPLOYEES UNION, KALPAKKAM v. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION, KALPAKKAM AND ANOTHER ( 2001 (2) LLJ 192 ) iv) VOLTAS VOLKART EMPLOYEES UNION v. VOLTAS LIMITED, MADRAS (1999(4)LLN.1107) 7. The above judgments deal with the failure on the part of the management to give notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner/association represent officers of the bank and therefore, strictly speaking the requirements under Section 9-A of the Act will not apply. However the rights and privileges of the employees or officers are not different. It has been held in TATA IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD. v. THE WORKMEN & OTHERS (AIR 1972-LLN-581), that the customary holidays would create a right in favour of the workers and any attempt to change the holiday would be within the contemplation of Section 9-A of the Act. The Supreme Court has also held that in such matters, process of consultation was necessary for the employer to reflect his sympathetic co-operation in improving the status and dignity of the employees. 8. Therefore, the same reasons would apply to the present case also, though the petitioner-union represents the officers of the bank. 9. Though the writ petition relates to the past years, the benefit of the order in this writ petition would certainly entitle the petitioner to the resultant benefits. 10. In result, writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs.