JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 5th December, 1988 by means of which the petitioner who is employed as Clerk in Allahabad Bank, Lucknow was transferred to Allahabad Bank, Branch Gonda in a newly established branch of the said bank. The new grounds upon which the transfer has been passed are in contravention of Para 534 of the Shastri Award dealing with the transfer policy of transferring an employee working in the said bank as well as the guideline, dated June 11, 1988 on transfer job rotation of Award Staff adopted by the said bank.
2. There is no dispute that banks are entitled to transfer its staff on the exigencies of the service from one particular branch to another and the Management is in the best position to judge how to transfer its staff between different branches, but it has to be seen whether the impugned order of transfer is in conformity with the policy regarding transfer which has been agreed upon by the parties and which was subject to the Shastri Award. It is provided in Para 536 of the said Award that in all cases the number of transfers to which a workman is subjected should be strictly limited and normally it should not be more than once in a year. It has also been laid down in the said Award that the discretion ("from transferring an employee from a particular branch to another branch") may not be abused and transfers effected on considerations other than the needs of the administration. Thus, in this case it has to be seen whether the transfer of the petitioner is in accordance with policy laid down in Shastri Award or not and whether the transferring authority has abused his discretion in the matter of the transfer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of the Syndicate Bank v. The Workmen (1966-I-LLJ-440), has laid down that there is no doubt that the banks are entitled to decide on the considerations of necessities of the banking business whether the transfer of an employee should be made to a particular branch and further observed that there is no doubt that the Management of the bank is in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different branches. In Writ petition No. 4937 of 1986, Sri Pradeep Kumar Saraswat v. Zonal Manager and Anr., a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Ahmad and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar have also endorsed the above view, after considering Para 534 of the Shastri Award and vacated the interim order, dated 31st December, 1986 passed in the aforesaid writ petition and rejected the stay application. The said writ petition is still pending for disposal.
3. The other ground which was vehemently argued on behalf of petitioner was that opposite parties have no right to transfer him from Lucknow Branch to Gonda Branch in as much as the said order of transfer was in contravention of the general guidelines on transfer/job rotation of the Award Staff, dated 11th June, 1988 contained in Annexure 4 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Punjab Bank Head Office, 2, Netaji Subhash Marg, Calcutta.
4. The opposite party No. 2 in his own counter-affidavit in paras 17 and 18 has not denied this fact that the aforementioned guidelines were issued by the Head Office of the Bank. In Para 18 of the counter-affidavit the opposite party No. 2 has stated that the impugned order of transfer was passed on the request of General Secretary of the Staff Association, who in his letter dated 6th September, 1988 has stated that the junior-most clerks-cum-cashier be posted at Gonda Region.
5. A perusal of Annexure 4, i.e., the general guidelines on transfer/job rotation of Award Staff which was arrived as a result of natural consent between All India Allahabad Bank Employees' Coordination Committee and the Bank authorities should show that the Management has the right to transfer an employee who has completed more than five years at a particular branch/office and normally the transfer of Award Staff who has not completed five years at a particular branch/office will not be considered and the transfer may be made within the same station.
6. The petitioner has further stated that his transfer was also not in conformity with the suggestions made by the All India Bank Employees' Union Co-ordination Committee contained in Annexure 5 to this writ petition. The petitioner, has alleged in Para 21 of the writ petition, that the guidelines contained in Annexure 5 were arrived upon as a result of mutual consent between All India Allahabad Bank Employees' Co-ordination Committee and the Bank Authorities which provides that in regard to transfer of an employee who had completed 15 years or more continuous service in branch/office shall be considered. Then employees who have completed ten years or more continuous service in branch/office shall be considered and then the employees who have completed five years or more in a branch/office shall be considered but in the present case the opposite party No. 3 without any basis or criteria had transferred the petitioner who has completed about one year of service in the bank and on the other hand retained other persons who are working on the post of clerk in the bank, prior to the posting of petitioner at Lucknow Branch. It is further alleged that at present more than 50 employees for the last 20 years are working in the main branch of the bank at Lucknow who are senior to the petitioner. In Para 19(1) of the counter- affidavit the opposite party No. 2 submitted that a perusal of Annexure 5 to the writ petition are mere suggestions from All India Allahabad Bank Employees Co-ordination Committee and the same have been considered while issuing the general guidelines on transfer/job rotation of Award Staff, dated 11th June, 198.8. In view of the aforesaid assertions we have to find out as to whether the transfer of the petitioner is in accordance with general guidelines on the transfer/job rotation of Award Staffer not. After giving our serious thought to the general guidelines on transfer/job rotation of Award Staff contained in Annexure 4 which was admittedly arrived at by mutual constent of the Unions and Bank Authorities, we are of the view that the opposite party cannot deviate or resile from the said mutual consent which was agreed upon between the Management of the Bank and the Union. It is admitted by the opposite parties themselves that the aforesaid transfer order was passed at the behest of the General Secretary of the Staff Association.
7. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was introduced by the Amending Act of 1956, was enacted to remedy a defect in the existing law. Prior to the amendment, there was no provision to make such settlements binding even on the parties thereto, with the result that the workmen notwithstanding such a settlement could raise an 'industrial dispute' on the identical matter agreed upon by their union. By the same amending Act, the definition of "settlement" was also amended, as the original definition contemplated only 'a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings'. This sub-section provides that a settlement arrived at by the agreement between the employer and the workmen "otherwise than in the course of conciliation" proceedings, as is apparent from the language of this provision, shall be binding only "on the parties to the agreement". Normally, it is the union or the representatives of the employees who enter into agreement with the employer. All the employees do not, as a matter of fact, become parties to the agreement. But the settlement signed by such representatives binds all those whom they represent. Therefore, the terms of the settlement become a part of the contract of employment of each individual workman represented by such representative. In the instant case none of the parties have disputed or challenged the settlement. Hence even if the said settlement is not in accordance with the prescribed form as contemplated under Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, it does not suffer from any defect. In Workmen of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
(1984-I-LLJ-388 at 398), Hon'ble Desai, J. ruled "the court by interpretative process must strive to reduce the field of conflict and expand the area of agreement and show its preference for upholding agreements sanctified by mutuality and consensus in larger public interest, namely, to eschew industrial strife, confrontation and consequent wastage"
The agreement or settlement contained in Annexure 5 which has not yet been terminated, will operate as inviolable condition of service of the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has laid great stress that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (A.I.R.) 1956 S.C. 1283 and the order, dated 15th January, 1987 parsed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble S.S.Ahmad, J. and Hon'ble B. Kumar, J. in the stay matter in Writ Petition No. 4937 of 1986, the writ petition in question deserves to be dismissed as the impugned order of transfer was passed by the opposite parties considering the exigencies of the service. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon 1982 U.P. Service Cases at page 541 and 1986(4) S.C.C. at page 541 and 1986(4) S.C.C. at page 131 in support of his argument that the Management of the Bank has full right to transfer the bank employees from a particular branch to another branch. In none of the aforesaid cases the general guidelines on transfer/job rotation of Award Staff, which were formulated as a result of mutual consent and agreement between the Union and the Management of the Bank, were subject-matter of controversy, the aforesaid rulings are not applicable to the facts of this writ petition.
9. Admittedly the petitioner has not completes more than five years at the particular branch at Allahabad-Lucknow Branch, hence it is not proper for the opposite parties to transfer him from Allahabad Bank Lucknow Branch of the Bank to Allahabad Bank Branch at Gonda. His transfer order contained in Annexure 2 was totally in disregard and contravention of the general guidelines contained in Annexure 4.
10. The writ petition is allowed and the transfer order of the petitioner contained in Annexure 2 is quashed. No order as to costs.