Industrial Dispute – Termination of Service & Settlement

STATE: Bihar.

INDUSTRY: Limestone quarry.

Dhanbad, 15th March 1972, 25th Phalguna, 1593 Saka.

AWARD

The Central Government, being of opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the management of Messrs. Parshva Properties Limited, Post Office Dalmianagar, Shahabad and their workmen, by its order No. L-29012/7/71-LRIV dated 3rd May, 1971 referred to this Tribunal under Section 10(1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication the dispute in respect of the matters specified in the schedule annexed thereto. The schedule is extracted below:

Schedule

“Whether the action of the management of Messrs. Parshva Properties Limited, Post Office Dalmianagar, Shahabad, in terminating the services of Shri Ram Naresh, Carrier of No. 23 Pit of Pipradih Quarries, with effect from the 15th September, 1970, is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?”

2. The workmen were represented by Shri Mangal Prasad, General Secretary, Rohtas Quarries Maxdoor Sangh Roira, Pipradih, P.O. Pararia, Distt. Shahabad and the employers by Shri Adishwar Prasad Jain, Administrative Officer. Parties filed statement of demands. On 25th January, 1972 parties filed a joint application reporting negotiations for compromise and on 5th March, 1972 they filed a compromise memo and it was duly verified. Having gone through the terms of compromise I find them beneficial to the workmen in general and the affected workman in particular. The compromise is, therefore, accepted and the award is made in terms of the compromise. The compromise memo is annexed herewith and is made part of the award. The award is submitted under Section 15 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(Sd.) N. Venkata Rao,
Presiding Officer.
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal
(No. 2), Dhanbad.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Reference No. 57 of 1971

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Parshva Properties Ltd., Dalmianagar

AND

Their workmen.

Memorandum of settlement arrived at between the management of M/s. Parshva Properties Ltd., Dalmianagar and their workmen, Shri Ram Naresh represented by Rohtas Quarries Maxdoor Sangh, Pipradih, in connection with the dispute under Reference No. 57 of 1971 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad.

Representing the management—Shri Adishwar Prasad Jain, Administrative Officer, Parshva Properties Ltd., Dalmianagar.

Representing the workmen—Shri Mangal Prasad, General Secretary, Rohtas Quarries Maxdoor Sangh, Pipradih.

Short recital of the case.

Whereas the management of M/s. Parshva Properties Ltd., Dalmianagar (hereinafter known as the Company) terminated the service of Shri Ram Naresh, Carrier of Pit No. 28, Katsuhayr Section of the Pipradih Lime Stone Quarries (hereinafter known as the Workman) with effect from 25th August, 1970 on account of long absence without leave;

And whereas the said termination became the subject matter of an Industrial Dispute registered as reference No. 57 of 1971 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad;

And whereas during the course of hearing of the said Dispute before the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal as a gesture of good will and ensuing better Industrial relations the management and the Union negotiated themselves to arrive at a mutually agreed settlement of the said Dispute;

Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed between the parties as follows:

Terms of settlement

1. That Shri Ram Naresh, Carrier, aforesaid, will be reinstated on his previous job and post in the same category with the same terms and conditions of employment and benefits he was enjoying at the time of the termination of his service. He will be allowed to resume his duties with effect from 16th March, 1972.

2. That Shri Ram Naresh shall not be entitled for any wage or leave wages or any other benefits for the intervening period from 25th August, 1970 to 15th March, 1972.

3. That the settlement fully and finally resolves the Dispute forming the subject matter of Reference No. 57 of 1971 pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2), Dhanbad.

The parties to this settlement have affixed their signatures in token thereof at Dhanbad, this 8th day of March, 1972.

For Parshva Properties Ltd., Dalmianagar.

For Rohtas Quarries Madoor Sangh, Pipradih

(Sd.) Areshwan Prasad Jain, Administrative Officer and Authorised Representative.

(Sd.) Mangal Prasad, General Secy. and Authorised Representative of the workman, Sri Ram Naresh.

[No. L-29012/7/71-LRIV.]

BALWANT SINGH, Under Secy.

(Department of Labour and Employment)

New Delhi, the 26th March 1972

S.O. 945.—In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the following award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Bombay in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Bank of Baroda and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on the 22nd March, 1972.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, BOMBAY

Employers in Relation to the Management of the Bank of Baroda

Reference No. CGIT-2/12 of 1970

AND

Their Workmen

Present:

Shri N. K. Vani Presiding Officer.

Appealances:

For the Employees—(i) Dr. J. K. Rose, Ph.D. (Lond.), Labour Adviser; (ii) Shri S. Sengupta, Personnel Officer.
For the workmen—(i) Shri Dilip Kumar Das Gupta, Advocate; (ii) Shri Sukumar Chaudhury, Labour Adviser.

INDUSTRY: BANKS.

STATE—West Bengal.

Bombay, the 14th March, 1972

AWARD

By order No. 23/58/69/LRIII dated the 7-10-1970 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred to this Tribunal for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the management of the Bank of Baroda and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule as mentioned below:

“SCHEDULE”

“Whether the management of Bank of Baroda are justified in excluding the period of service rendered by the workmen of the Hindu Bank Limited, New Citizen Bank and the Tamilnad Banking Corporation under the said Banks for the purpose of payment of Diamond Jubilee Bonus declared by the Bank of Baroda in 1968? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?”

2. On 17-4-1971, the Secretary, the Bank of Baroda Ltd., Calcutta Staff Association, Calcutta-1 wrote a letter to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Labour and Employment as mentioned below for making amendment in the Schedule mentioned above:

“Sub: Amendment to the Schedule of Order dated 7th October, 1970 regarding an industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bank of Baroda and their workmen,

Ref. Your No. 23/58/69/LRIII dated 7th Oct. 1970,

“With reference to above, we beg to submit as under:

That it is seen from the Order of the Reference in Schedule that the HIND BANK LIMITED was inadvertently inserted as ‘HINDU BANK LIMITED’. As the Hind Bank Limited was amalgamated with the Bank of Baroda Limited (since nationalisation, it is called Bank of Baroda), the name of Hindu Bank Limited, requires amendment so as to read as HIND BANK LIMITED.

In view of foregoing, it is prayed that necessary amendment in the Order of Reference may kindly be effected and necessary advice may kindly be forwarded to all concerned and/or your goodself may pass such other order/s as your honour may deem fit and proper.”

3. On 21-4-1971, the Secretary of the same Association moved the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Labour and Employment for making further amendment in the Schedule as mentioned below:

“Sub: Amendment to the Schedule of Order dated 7th October, 1970 regarding an industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the Bank of Baroda and their workmen.

Ref. Your No. 23/58/69/LRIII dt. 7-10-1970.

With reference to above, we beg to submit as under:

That it is seen from the Order of the reference in Schedule that the TAMILNAD CENTRAL BANK LTD. was inadvertently inserted as TAMILNAD BANKING CORPORATION. As the Hind Bank Limited as amalgamated with the Bank of Baroda Limited (since nationalisation it is called ‘Bank of Baroda’), the name of Tamilnad Banking Corporation requires amendment so as to read as TAMILNAD CENTRAL BANK LTD.

In view of foregoing, it is prayed that necessary amendment in the order of Reference may kindly be effected and necessary advice may kindly be forwarded to all concerned and/or your goodself may pass such other order(s) as your honour may deem fit and proper.”

4. In pursuance of letter dated 17-4-1971, the Government of India, issued corrigendum dated 24-4-1971 as mentioned below:

“S.O. —In the Schedule to the Order of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) S.O. 3464, dated the 7th October, 1970, published in Part II Section 5, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 24th October, 1970, for the words ‘Hindu Bank Limited’ read ‘Hind Bank Limited.'”

5. In pursuance of letter dated 21-4-1971 the Government of India issued further corrigendum dated 26-8-1971 as mentioned below:

“S.O. —In the Schedule to the Order of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and Employment) S.O. 3464, dated the 7th October, 1970, published in Part II Section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 24th October, 1970, for the words ‘Tamilnad Banking Corporation’ read ‘Tamilnad Central Bank Limited.'”

6. In view of the above mentioned corrigendum the original Schedule stands amended as mentioned below:

“SCHEDULE”

Whether the management of Bank of Baroda are justified in excluding the period of service rendered by the workmen of the Hindu Bank Limited, New Citizen Bank and the Tamilnad Central Bank Limited under the said Banks for the purpose of payment of Diamond Jubilee Bonus declared by the Bank of Baroda in 1968? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?

7. The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows:

8. The Bank of Baroda completed 60 years on 20-7-1968. In commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee of the Bank, the Board of Directors sanctioned ex-gratia Bonus on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the Circular dated 22-11-1968.

9. That circular is as follows:

“To

All Branches in India,
Re:—Diamond Jubilee of the Bank—Ex-gratia Bonus

You are aware that our Bank has completed 60 years on the 20th July, 1968. In commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee of the Bank, the Board of Directors are pleased to sanction ex-gratia Bonus on the following basis and
subject to the conditions stated as under:-
(1) The ex-gratia Bonus will be equivalent to one day’s basic salary for each completed year of service in the Bank of Baroda Limited as on 20th July, 1968 subject to a minimum Bonus of 15 (fifteen) days basic salary. Only completed years of service will be considered and part of the year shall not be counted. For this purpose the term ‘basic salary’ will include Special Allowances and Officiating Allowance, if any, but no other allowance of any kind.
(2) The Bonus will be payable to those employees who are permanent and in the Bank’s service on the 20th July, 1968. Employees who fulfill this condition will be eligible for the minimum Bonus even though they may not have completed one completed year of service as on 20th July, 1968.
(3) The Bonus shall be calculated on the basic salary payable on the 20th July, 1968. A day’s salary shall be calculated on the basis of a month of 20 (thirty) days.
(4) Those who have resigned from the Bank’s service whether before or after the 20th July, 1968 will not be eligible for such Bonus.
(5) Those employees who have retired before 20th July, 1968 will not be eligible for such Bonus.
(6) For calculating completed years of service as on 20th July, 1968 continuous service actually put in the Bank of Baroda Limited will alone be considered, and service in any other Bank prior to amalgamation with the Bank of Baroda Limited will not be counted.
(7) Such employees whose terms of service exclude payment of any Bonus shall also be eligible for this ex-gratia Bonus.
We enclose two copies of a circular for the information of the employees. One copy of this circular should be exhibited on the notice Board of your Branch/Office and the other may be kept for your record.
Please pay the Bonus to the employees of your Branch/Office on the terms and conditions mentioned above, during the period 3rd to 6th December, 1968, both days inclusive. The total amount of the Bonus paid should be debited to a special account to be opened in your profit and loss account Ledger styled as ‘Exgratia Diamond Jubilee Bonus Account’. A full statement in duplicate as per proforma attached should be sent to Head Office within a week from the date of payment of the Bonus.
Please note that part-time employees including job workers at your Branch/Office may also be paid this Bonus, if they fulfil the conditions mentioned above.”

10. After the receipt of the above mentioned circular, the Secretary of the Bank of Baroda Ltd., Calcutta Staff Association made representation to the Chairman of the Bank by his letter dated 27-11-1968, Ex.12/W making a grievance for not taking into consideration the past service of the ex-Hindu Bank employees and taking into consideration only the service put in the Bank of Baroda Limited for giving Diamond Jubilee Bonus. Even after this letter further correspondence was done with the Bank but it did not consider the demand of the ex-Hind Bank employees. Hence the Association raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C). Calcutta. He made his efforts to bring about
    conciliation between the parties but in vain. He ultimately submitted his failure of conciliation report to the Secretary to the Government of India on 29-41969. On receipt of this report the Government of India referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
11. On receipt of the reference in this Tribunal notices were issued to the parties to file written statements. In pursuance of this notice both the parties have filed their written statements.
12. The Secretary of the Bank of Baroda Ltd. Calcutta Staff Association has filed written statement at Ex. 1/W.
13. According to him:-
    (i) The Bank of Baroda Limited (after nationalisation called ‘Bank of Baroda’) completed 60 years of its existence in 1968. To celebrate the occasion the management of the Bank declared a Diamond Jubilee Bonus to the members of staff which was to be paid in the manner laid down in its circular dated 22-11-1968.
    (ii) In para. 6 of the aforementioned circular, the following direction was given:
    ‘For calculating completed years of service as on 30th July, 1968 continuous service actulaly put in the Bank of Baroda Limited will alone be considered and service in any other Bank prior to amalgamation with the Bank of Baroda Limited will not be counted.’
    (iii) The employees to be covered by this definition in Eastern (Calcutta) Region are the employees of ex-Hind Bank Limited who were taken over by the Bank of Baroda Limited by a Scheme of Amalgamation entered into in the month of August, 1958. In terms of clause 11(a) and 11(c) of the said Scheme of Amalgamation the services of the employees of erstwhile Hind Bank Limited were taken over by the Bank of Baroda Limited on the basis that their services have been continuous and have not been interrupted by the transfer.
    (iv) In practice also, since the merger, the employees of erstwhile Hind Bank Limited and those of Bank of Baroda Limited were treated equally and at par in all respects in the matter of seniority, promotion and other conditions of service. After the merger, the Bank of Baroda Limited celebrated its Golden Jubilee in December, 1958 and on that occasion also same Jubilee Bonus was paid to the employees of erstwhile Hind Bank Limited and those of Bank of Baroda Limited. In the matter of payment of the Jubilee Bonus i.e. the Golden Jubilee Bonus made in December 1958 no such discrimination was made and the payments were made equitably and in terms of the Scheme of Amalgamation referred to above.
    (v) It would appear that as per terms and conditions of service applicable to the employees of erstwhile Hind Bank Limited the basis of payment of Diamond Jubilee Bonus stipulated by the management was unfair, discrimination between the workmen and workmen and also in violation of the terms of Amalgamation.
    (vi) Should such discrimination be allowed to be made by the management it would result in division and disunity amongst the workmen and thus any such act would be unfair labour practice.
14. The Joint General Manager (Foreign & Personnel) Shri C. P. Shah has filed written statement for and on behalf of the Bank of Baroda at Ex.2/E.
15. According to him:-
    (i) The subject matter of the reference being an ex-gratia payment in the nature of a gift to bounty cannot constitute or give rise to an industrial dispute and the reference therefore is bad in law/and vests no jurisdiction in this Tribunal.
    (ii) The Bank of Baroda Ltd., declared ex-gratia Bonus to the members of the staff which was paid as per rules in that behalf laid down in PD/Circular No. 22 of 1968 dated 22-11-1968.
    (iii) On completion of 60 years of its existence on 27-7-1968 the Bank of Baroda Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) declared in commemoration of its Diamond Jubilee Bonus to its employees in terms of the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 14.11.1968. The terms of conditions under which this Bonus was payable to the employees were announced to the staff by the Bank’s PD Circular No. 21 dated 22-11-1968. This circuille in terms states that the Directors have sanctioned exgratia Diamond Jubilee Bonus at the rate of one day’s salary for each completed year of service as on 20th July, 1968, subject to a minimum of 15 days basic salary. Clause 6 of this circular stipulated that continuous service actually put in the then Bank of Baroda Ltd. would alone be considered and service in any other Bank prior to amalgamation with the Bank of Baroda Ltd., would not be counted.
    (iv) The Resolution of the Board of Directors clearly states that the Bonus payment was exgratia. The same Resolution also bave down the restriction disputed by the employees as regards eligibility.
    (v) A gift cannot be claimed either as a term of employment or as a condition of service or as a matter of right. The employees have either to accept or to reject the Bonus made available to them by the circular dated 22-11-1968, on the terms and conditions regarding eligibility or otherwise as laid down in the circular. The employees would not be justified in accepting the sort regarding eligibility. In any case, this Tribunal may not permit the employees to approbate and reprobate in this matter.
    (vi) The Bank’s scheme for payment of the Diamond Jubilee Bonus cannot be assailed as being unfair, unjust or discriminatory as contended by the Calcutta Staff Association. In any event the decision of the Bank to make this gift on the basis of continuous service with this Bank is fully justified.
    (vii) The Bank is fully justified in deciding not to regard the full period of service of the employees prior to amalgamation and restrict the quantum of the reward in respect of the ex-Hind Bank employees to their “actual neriod of service only with the then Bank of Baroda Ltd. The recuive for the celebration was the Diomond Jubilee of the Bank of Baroda and it is only fair and proper that service in the Bank of Baroda only is considered. This urinotate is also anelienble to the employees of other Banks which were taken over by the the Bank of Baroda Ltd. between the soase 1958 to 1964 which also includes the New Citizen Bank of India Ltd. and Tamil Nadu Banking Corporation Ltd.
    (viii) The fact that the Golden Jubilee Bonus dea. lared in 1958 was then paid to all members of the staff including the section of employees concerned in this reference viz., ex-Hind Bank employees cannot be said to constitute any
    precedent for not claiming the Diamond Jubilee Bonus which is ex-gratia and therefore a gift.
16. On the date of nearing of this reference at Calcutta both the parties adduced evidence in the beginning on preliminary point. Immediately thereafter they adduced evidence both oral and documentary on merit.
17. On preliminary point, Shri Ajit Shankar Bhattacharyya, Agent gave evidence on behalf of the Bank at Ex.6/E, and produced documents Exhibits 7/E, 8/E and 9 / \mathrm{E}.
18. Shri Dinendra Nath Biswas, a clerk in Bank of Baroda has given evidence on behalf of the Association at Ex.11/W and produced documents Exhibits 13/W to 20/W.
19. Shri Jiban Mitra, Special Assistant in Bank of Baroda has given evidence on behalf of the Association at Ex.21/W on merit. He has produced documents at Ex.23/W. Shri Dinendra Nath Biswas has given further evidence on merit on behalf of the Association at Ex.23/W.
20. Shri Ajit Shankar Bhattacharyya, Agent has given further evidence on merit on behalf of the Bank at Ex.24/E. He has produced document Ex.25/E.
21. From the pleadings and arguments advanced before me the following points arise for decision in this reference,
    (i) Whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain this reference?
    (ii) Whether the reference is tenable?
    (iii) Whether the management of Bank of Baroda are justified in excluding the period of service rendered by the workmen of the Hind Bank Limited, New Citizen Bank and the Tamilnad Central Bank Limited under the said Banks for the purpose of payment of Diamond Jubilee Bonus declared by the Bank of Baroda in 1968?
    (iv) If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?
    (v) What order?
22. My findings are as follows:-
    (i) Yes.
    (ii) Yes.
    (iii) No in respect of employees of ex-Hind Bank Ltd. No finding is recorded in respect of employees of ex-New Citizen Bank and ex-Tamilnad Central Bank Ltd.
    (iv) As mentioned in the judgement.
    (v) As per order.

Reasons

Point Nos. i and ii

23. It is contended on behalf of the Bank in para. 1 of Ex.2/E that the subject matter of the reference being an ex-gratia payment in the nature of a gift or bounty cannot constitute or give rise to an industrial dispute and on account of this the reference is bad in law and vests no jurisdiction Tribunal. This contention is misconceived.
24. It is common ground that as the Bank of Baroda Limited completed 60 years on 27-7-1968, the Board of Directors sanctioned ex-gratia bonus which was to be said on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in Circular dated 22-11-1968 referred to in Para 9 above. There can be therefore no doubt that the Bank of Baroda decided to give ex-gratia bonus to its staff.