JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner-Allahabad Bank Kidwai Nagar Branch Kanpur for the relief of quashing the notification dated January 29, 1988 by which the Government of India, Ministry of Labour had referred the dispute of respondents 2 to 5 as a composite reference to the Labour Court vide notification dated January 29, 1988.
2. The employer-petitioner, namely, Allahabad Bank has canvassed the validity of the said notification on the premises that all the persons mentioned in the reference although were the employees of Allahabad Bank, were serving in different branches and the period of cause of action i.e. the date of termination in each case was distinct from each other. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that since all the persons specified in the notification making reference to the Labour Court, were terminated by the different branches of Allahabad Bank in which they were serving and on different dates and therefore, this composite reference for different periods of termination was not sustainable in law and the order of reference issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India is liable to be quashed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen, in opposition, contended that all the workmen were class IV employees; that though they were working in Allahabad Bank in the different branches but their service conditions were subject to one Rules, Regulations and policy decision adopted by the Allahabad Bank and that the composite reference made by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India conforms to the policy decision of the Allahabad Bank and by this reckoning, the composite reference made has the approbation of Rule 2-A read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contended that the petitioner is employing dilatory tactics ostensibly to protract the adjudication of illegal order of termination.
4. I have heard the arguments made by the learned counsel across the Bar and reckoned into consideration the relevant materials on record also the law relevant on the points involved in the case. The short question involved in the present case is whether one composite reference of several workmen by one notification in the facts and circumstances of the case could be made by the Government to the Labour Court?
5. Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act being relevant for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in this petition is excerpted below:
"2-A Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute- Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman, nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute."
Section 10(2) of the Act being relevant on the points is also excerpted below:
"10(2). Where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner, whether compositely or separately, for a reference of the dispute to a Board, Court, (Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal), the appropriate Government if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, shall make the reference accordingly."
The question that emerges for adjudication is whether workmen under the employment of one employer and serving at different places in different branches could raise individual dispute under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or whether any composite reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act could be made ? To appraise the question in its correct perspective, it is necessary to delve into the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act which was introduced by way of amendment by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1965, i.e. Act No. 35 of 1965 on December 1, 1965. Section 2-A specifically envisages that in case employer terminates or otherwise retrenches the services of an individual workman, any dispute arising out of such discharge or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Again for proper appraisement of the dispute involved in this petition, Section 10(1) and its Sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 being germane to the controversy involved in this petition may be quoted below:
"(10). Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.- (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing-
(a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or
(b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or
(c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or
(d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication."
Section 10(1)(1)(b) envisages that where the State Government is of the opinion that any industrial dispute exists it may, at any time, by an order in writing refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Labour Court or to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
6. In the present case, admittedly, all the persons mentioned in the reference are workmen of Allahabad Bank. It also brooks no dispute that their services were terminated by officers of different branches of Allahabad Bank. They have raised their disputes that the orders of their termination/retrenchment suffer from the taint of illegalities. The question that came up for consideration before the Labour Court was whether termination order was passed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations by observing in compliance the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and/or the policy of the Employer. Since the matter of termination of each workman, to use the clauses of Section 10 (supra), appears to be connected, therefore, the opinion of the appropriate Government that one composite reference be made, cannot be said to be wearing the taint of illegality as not permissible under the law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed credence on an unreported decision of this Court rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6507 of 1988 on April 27, 1995. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank, Banda v. Central Government Industrial Court, Kanpur and Ors., 1998 (79) FLR 113. The question thrown up for consideration in this decision was similar to one involved in this petition. The learned single Judge in the case (supra) returned a finding that "it does not lie in the mouth of Allahabad Bank that the Composite Reference should not have been made. It is nothing but a device to prolong the proceedings which may break the nerves of poor labourers so that their grievances may not be redressed timely." The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties also submitted that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was considered and distinguished in the said decision (supra). He also relied upon another decision reported in AIR 1949 F.C. 148 in support of his case. The law laid down by the learned single Judge applies on all fours to the present case. In the perspective of arguments and the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties, I converge to the opinion that the Central Government has rightly referred the dispute of all workmen of Allahabad Bank as a composite reference vide notification dated January 27, 1987. From a conjoint reading of Section 2-A and Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is abundantly clear that one composite/composite reference was permissible in law. The opinion of the Central Government while making a composite reference, in my considered view, did not suffer from any infirmity and it rightly made a composite reference to the Labour Court inasmuch as composite reference was permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case. My view finds reinforcement from the decision rendered in Regional Bank, Allahabad Bank, Banda v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur and Ors. (supra).
8. Yet another argument pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner that composite reference from different workmen suffers from the taint of multifariousness and will affect the individual workmen who are loathe to join hands with the other workmen, has no cutting edge inasmuch as in the present case, all the workmen were appointed by Allahabad Bank albeit the fact that they were serving in different branches of the Bank. The question for adjudication would be whether the termination orders passed against the workmen, were made in accord with the Rules, Regulations, Circulars or the Policy decisions of the Allahabad Bank? In the above perspective, the matter is connected with each other. Besides, none of the workmen have agitated any such dispute resisting composite reference or insisting on individual adjudication of the dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to lend support to his submission by citing the decision in A.K. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 1997 Lab IC 1035. This decision, in my considered opinion, is unavailing to the petitioner in the peculiar fact of the present case. The common nature revolving round the matter of termination of all the workmen was whether the order of termination was passed in tune with the Rules, Regulations, circulars or the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this citation by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail to the petitioner.
9. There is yet another aspect to be dwelt upon. Allahabad Bank had not raised any dispute before the Conciliation Officer or before any labour authorities on the aspect of composite reference. They have, for the first time come to this Court and canvassed the legality of the notification. The Central Government, it transpires from the record, has formed the opinion on the basis of conciliation report and other materials available on the record. Besides, the Administrative Officer of the Allahabad Bank is the repository of service records of its employees working in its different branches. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there would be difficulty in adducing evidence in regard to the workmen mentioned in the notification making reference to the Labour Court, does not commend itself for acceptance.
10. In the above conspectus, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.