- (1.) These are four appeals by special leave from an Award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, made on September 3, 1980 disposing of two complaints under Section 33-A of the I. D. Act, 1947 holding that the employer, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay had changed to the prejudice of the complainants their conditions of service by modifying the existing scheme of promotion during the pendency of a reference before the Tribunal and had thereby contravened the provisions of Sec. 33 (1) (a) of the Act. Civil Appeals 2815 and 2816 of 1980 have been preferred by the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay. In civil appeal 2607 of 1980 the appellants are some of the stenographers employed in the Bombay office of the Reserve Bank of India. The four appellants in civil appeal 3150 of 1980 are also employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, one of whom is a clerk grade I and the other three are officiating as staff officers grade A. How the appellants in civil appeals 2607 and 3150 are affected by the Award will appear from the facts stated below. The facts leading to the making of the complaints under Section 33-A are as follows. On June 16, 1979, the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 constituted a National Industrial Tribunal with headquarters at Bombay and referred to it for adjudication an industrial dispute existing between the Reserve Bank of India and their class III workmen. The dispute as described in the schedule to the order of reference related to "specific matters... pertaining to class III workmen" enumerated in the schedule. The schedule listed 35 matters in all, item No. 12 of which is described as 'Promotion'.
(2.) On May 13, 1972 appellant Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, had issued Administration Circular No. 8 introducing a revised scheme for promotion of employees as Staff Officers Grade A. This circular No. 8 prescribed as a condition for promotion passing a test consisting of three papers on the following subjects: (i) noting, drafting, precis and essay writing, (ii) Reserve Bank of India Act, and (iii) functions and working of the Reserve Bank of India. Candidates with less than 15 years' service in class III cadre at the time of the test and who had not passed in the subjects 'Practice and Law of Banking' and 'Book-keeping and Accounts' in Part I of the Institute of Bankers Examination were to appear and pass in an extra paper divided into two parts on the aforesaid two subjects. Candidates who had passed in either or both these subjects in Part I of the Institute of Bankers Examination were exempted from appearing in the corresponding part or both parts of this paper. The circular further provided that an estimate of the vacancies anticipated to occur in each office during a 'panel year' i. e. from September 1 to August 31, was to be declared by the Bank in advance and the number of candidates in that office to be called for the test to fill the vacancies in that office was not to exceed twice the number of such vacancies. A candidate who had been unsuccessful in more than one test was to be treated as a repeater and the number of such repeaters sitting for a test would be in addition to the aforesaid number of candidates. An employee in the substantive rank of teller, stenographer grade II, stenographer grade I or personal assistant was eligible to appear in the test under this circular provided he had put in a minimum period of 15 years' service in class III cadre. A further condition relating to these three types of employees, tellers, stenographers and personal assistants, was that they could be called to appear in the test only if a clerical candidate of the same length of service found a place within twice the number in the combined seniority list. The said three types of employees were required to pass both parts I and II of the Institute of Bankers examination, or if they were graduates, in part I only. Those of them who would pass the test were to be posted on the clerical desk for one year for acquiring experience and thereafter they were to be absorbed in the next list to be prepared on the result of the test succeeding the one in which they had passed. They were to rank in seniority below the juniormost successful candidates in the test in which they qualified. A further requirement was that the stenographers and personal assistants should have worked for at least 5 years as such; this condition was thought necessary because it was possible that some of them may have been employed as typists for some time.
(3.) Feeling that the aforesaid circular No. 8 adversely affected them, the Stenographers filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the circular. The main grievance seems to have been that by the said circular No. 8 they were placed en bloc below the clerks which made the chances of promotion so far as they were concerned illusory. The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations : "...the clerks and the stenographers who have passed at the qualifying written examination do not acquire any right to promotion by merely being put in a panel. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case cited in Gangaram v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 2178, the effect of passing at the qualifying examination is only to remove a hurdle in their way for further promotions to the posts of staff officers, grade II. In the matter of actual promotion there is nothing illegal in the department promoting the clerks as a group in the first instance and postponing the promotions of the stenographers to a later stage. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that previous to the new scheme, the stenographers were placed at the top of the clerks en bloc and that they have now been brought to the bottom. This argument is based upon a misconception that the panel creates any rights. Hence nothing turns upon the place fixed in the panel." The High Court however made certain recommendations "to avoid frustration and dissatisfaction among the stenographers." It was suggested that "the Reserve Bank may frame suitable rules for fixing the seniority among the staff officers, grade II, on some rational and equitable principles, i.e., by length of service or marks obtained at the qualifying examination or by adopting a reasonable ratio between the two classes, so that the chances of further promotions for the stenographers may not be illusory." This judgment was delivered on March 5, 1973. In the months of March and November, 1973 charters of demand were submitted respectively by the All India Reserve Bank Workers Organisation and the All India Reserve Bank Employees Association. The latter Association is the one which is recognised by the Bank. On January 23, 1976, by Administration Circular No. 5 the Bank modified circular No. 8 to remedy the alleged adverse effect suffered by the stenographers as a result of circular No. 8. On June 16, 1979, the order referring to the National Tribunal at Bombay the dispute between the Bank and the class III workmen was made. The All India Reserve Bank Employees Association filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court in July, 1979 challenging this order of reference. The High Court at Calcutta issued an injunction restraining the National Tribunal from adjudicating on the reference until the writ petition was disposed of. A settlement was thereafter reached between the Bank and the All India Reserve Bank Employees Association and the injunction was vacated. On November 21, 1979, the Bank and the Association applied to the Tribunal jointly for making an award on the basis of the settlement.;