JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The staff association of the Catholic Syrian Bank has filed this writ petition calling into question the validity of Ext.P1 award issued by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam (herein after referred to as the Labour Court, Ernakulam). The proceedings before the Labour Court commenced on the basis of a reference made by the Central Government under Section 10(1)(B) and (2) (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ID Act for short). The reference appears to have been originally made to the State Labour Court but transferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as per the directions of this Court and I notice that the reference made was: "whether the proposed action of the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd in unilateral withdrawal of customary practice of availment of casual leave on half day basis is just and reasonable? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?" 2. After hearing the parties at length and after assessing the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal issued Ext.P1 order, holding that the decision of the management of the Catholic Syrian Bank to withdraw the facility of granting half day casual leave is not against any of the terms of the bipartite settlement or the applicable provisions of law and consequently declared that the claim of the Union to continue this facility is not sustainable. The petitioner challenges this order as being illegal and unlawful. 3. I have heard Smt. Surya Benoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union and Smt. Latha Anand, learned standing counsel appearing for the Catholic Syrian Bank. 4. I notice that this writ petition was filed as early as in the year 2006 challenging Ext.P1 order which was issued on 10/05/2006. During the rather long period when this writ petition has been pending before this Court, no interim orders have been granted and therefore, obviously, the terms of Ext.P1 order has also remained in force. Effectively, it means that for the last more than twelve years, the employees of the Bank have not obtained the benefit of half day casual leave and that this position is continuing even today. Effectively, it means that for the last more than twelve years, the employees of the Bank have not obtained the benefit of half day casual leave and that this position is continuing even today. I have said this only to indicate that at this distance of time, the challenge of the petitioner appears to have become virtually stale and it would not have normally required this Court to go into these issues in detail. However, since Smt. Surya Benoy has argued vehemently against the conclusions in Ext.P1 order, I deem it appropriate to consider and meet such contentions as per law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Surya Benoy submits that since the Bank has conceded that the facility of granting half day casual leave has matured to a service condition, which is obvious from the fact that it had issued a notice under Section 9(A) of the ID Act to the Unions, the burden of proving, that the action of withdrawing such facility is legally tenable, was fully upon the Bank. She says that the Bank has, however, not discharged this satisfactorily and therefore, that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim of the Union. 6. I notice from Ext.P1 that, contrary to the submissions of Smt.Surya Benoy, these issues were considered in great detail by the Tribunal in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order. In order to enable a complete reading, I deem it appropriate to extract the same as under: (a). There is little doubt that the long practice of granting half day casual leave has matured into a service condition since a notice under section 9A issued to unions is an admission of the recognition of the service condition by the management. Unless the practice has matured into a service condition and the employees are likely to be affected by the proposed change, a notice under section 9A of I.D. Act is not required. The practical difficulty experienced by the bank is explained by MWI, besides the pleadings in the written statement. According to MW1, there are many branches in rural and far away places where the staff strength is only 4 or 5 including the officer. If any one of them is on leave the banking business is affected. It is all the more felt when a clerk or a sub-staff is on leave. According to MW1, there are many branches in rural and far away places where the staff strength is only 4 or 5 including the officer. If any one of them is on leave the banking business is affected. It is all the more felt when a clerk or a sub-staff is on leave. Since there is tough competition in the banking industry the customer cannot be made to wait at the counter. Displeasure of customers will affect the business of the bank. If a staff suddenly avails half day casual leave it is difficult to get a substitute on short notice to another branch. If a staff is deputed from another branch that branch would also suffer. It is to avoid these practical difficulties and render smooth service to customers that the bank decided to withdraw the facility of granting half day casual leave. The business hours in bank previously was from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and now it is from 10.00 a.m., to 3.30 p.m. It is therefore contended by the union that because of the extension of the business hours of the bank till 3.30 p.m. an employee who avails half day casual leave gets a considerable time to serve the customer either in the forenoon or in the afternoon session unlike in the past. Admittedly an employee who avails half day casual leave in the morning has to report for duty at 1.15 p.m. The person who avails the afternoon session on casual leave similarly can leave only during lunch break which is from 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Therefore, a person on half day casual leave gets opportunity to serve the customer for a considerable time. At the same time, the employee who avails half day casual leave can meet his personal needs and come back to bank without wasting the full day on casual leave. It is pointed out by the union that so far as availability of substitute is concerned it makes no difference whether leave availed is full day casual leave or half day casual leave. The management may not be able to get any substitute unless the request for leave is made sufficiently early. If branches are far away from each other it is not feasible to get substitutes. (b). The management may not be able to get any substitute unless the request for leave is made sufficiently early. If branches are far away from each other it is not feasible to get substitutes. (b). It may be true that the employees may even for small personal needs will have to avail casual leave for a full day if half day casual leave facility is taken away. But the bank has to protect and preserve the business by rendering prompt service to the customer. This can be done only if enough staff strength is there. Of course, unforeseen circumstances may arise when someone of the staff or officer is absent. But then the available staff will have to cooperate and adjust the work. The apprehension of the bank is that due to indiscriminate availing of half day casual leave by the employees the entire work of the bank is affected. The possible remedy according to the management is to stop the facility of half day casual leave (24 in number). There is no provision in the bipartite settlement (Ext. MI) regarding half day casual leave. Ext. M2 is a similar bipartite agreement of 2000 entered into between Indian Bank Association and the unions. But the claimant union says that the Catholic Syrian Bank was not a member of IBA in 2000 though it was a member previously. WW1 has no direct knowledge. The bank does not admit that it is not a member of IBA. Whatever that be, in either bipartite settlements (Ext. M1 & M2) there is no mention about half day casual leave. But the privilege by long practice has matured into a service condition, and that is why a notice u/s-9A of I.D. Act was given to unions before change was effected. The decision of the bank to withdraw the facility of half day casual leave is a policy decision of the management. It is not for the court to go into the rationale behind the policy decision. A statutory notice under section 9A was given to the claimant union and their objection was considered. According to MWI the issue was studied and considered before a decision was taken by the management. Since it was an informal study there are no records to show that a study was conducted. A statutory notice under section 9A was given to the claimant union and their objection was considered. According to MWI the issue was studied and considered before a decision was taken by the management. Since it was an informal study there are no records to show that a study was conducted. According to the union the management without properly studying the pros and cons of the proposal, effected the change of a service condition in a casual manner. The decision is not wise and does not help either the management or the employees. The contentions of the union is not fully acceptable. There is no doubt that it is convenient for employees to get the facility of half day casual leave. At the same time, there are more inconvenience and difficulty on the side of management to continue the practice. Unless there were sound reasons the existing 20 nationalized Banks and 35 scheduled banks would not have withdrawn the facility of half day casual leave. The Catholic Syrian Bank is also trying to bring about uniformity in the banking field though it is not bound to follow the service conditions of other banks as long as bipartite agreement is silent about half day casual leave. What I am able to gather is that, the advantage in banking business by withdrawing half day casual leave facility out ways the disadvantage confronted by the employees by not granting the same. That apart, as already mentioned, It is a policy decision of the bank and they are entitled to effect the change in service conditions after giving a notice under section 9A of I.D. Act to the workmen. The procedure is legal and no interference is called for. Point is answered accordingly. 7. It is clear that the Tribunal has dealt with these issues in substantial depth and the only surviving question is whether the Bank has discharged its burden before the Tribunal for it to have concluded in the manner afore. 8. The procedure is legal and no interference is called for. Point is answered accordingly. 7. It is clear that the Tribunal has dealt with these issues in substantial depth and the only surviving question is whether the Bank has discharged its burden before the Tribunal for it to have concluded in the manner afore. 8. I notice from the pleadings on record, as also the evidence gathered by the Tribunal, that the respondent Bank had decided to do away with the facility of half day leave as a matter of policy and in order to obtain uniformity in the banking field, since all other banks had done away with such facility following a decision that was taken by the Indian Banks Association in the year 2000. 9. Of course, Smt. Surya Benoy submits that the respondent bank was not a member of the Indian Banks Association (IBA for short) in the year 2000 and therefore, that they are not bound by its decisions. I am afraid that this submission would not turn the situation in any manner because, once the Bank had taken a decision, as a matter of policy, to adopt the resolution of the IBA, albeit even when they where not a member of the IBA, it would not be proper for this Court or for the Industrial Tribunal to interdict such policy decisions merely because the Unions wanted the facility to continue. As long it is not disputed before me that the decision of the management of the Bank was taken as a matter of policy and not vitiated by malafides or any other factors that could question its credibility, I see no reason why such a decision cannot be allowed to operate. 10. Be that as it may, as I have already said above, this is a policy taken by the bank almost 14 years ago and it has remained in force for the last more than 13 years even when this writ petition was pending. 10. Be that as it may, as I have already said above, this is a policy taken by the bank almost 14 years ago and it has remained in force for the last more than 13 years even when this writ petition was pending. I therefore, cannot find this decision of the Bank to be in any manner malafide in its nature or that the Bank has not discharged its essential obligation to explain as to why this facility was withdrawn, particularly when it is virtually conceded that the IBA had taken a decision making it applicable across the banking field and that the respondent bank had only adopted it, with the intention of making its operations also in conformity with the generally accepted Industrial practices. 11. In the afore circumstances, I find no reason to interfere or interdict, in any manner, with the conclusions, holdings or findings in Ext.P1 and I consequentially dismiss this Writ petition, however, directing the parties to suffer their respective costs. 12. This writ petition is thus ordered.