- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. State Bank of India, Karamchari Sangh through its General Secretary has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 30-6-2000 passed by Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi refusing to refer the matter before Central Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
(2.) BRIEF facts relied upon for adjudicating present writ petition is that petitioner is "trade union" registered under Trade Union Act. Said trade Union represent members of State Bank India Karamchari Sangh and is operating in different branches of State Bank of India. Said union in the present case espousing the case of one Vijay Kumar who is alleged to have been appointed as permanent part time sweeper on 26-12-1977 at Navin Market Branch of State Bank of India, Kanpur. Earlier he was getting 1/3rd salary and it was raised to 1/2 with effect from 16-10-1981. Subsequently it was enhanced to 3/4th w. e. f. 1-1-1985. Thereafter Branch Manager of the State Bank of India wrote letter to Regional Manager to give him full time wages a workload has increased. This was refused. As concerned workman had been doing work on whole time basis, he claimed that he is entitled for full wages based on bipartite settlement which regulates the increase of wages of part time workman as per para 4. 5 of the settlement in case workman worked for more than 29 hours in a week he was entitle for full scale wages as this benefit was not being extended then industrial dispute was raised by Vijay Kumar. Secretary Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide notification dated 15-12-1993 referred the said dispute for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. Terms of reference was as follows : "whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Kanpur in refusing full wages to Sri Vijay Kumar Sweeper-cum-Farash, is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" Tribunal registered aforementioned dispute as I. D. No. 112 of 1993 and after due contest award was passed in favour of petitioner, holding concerned workman had worked for more than 29 hours in a week and he was legally entitled to get full wages from the date of reference. Said award has been made on 15-4-1997. Branch Manger of Navin Market, Branch of State Bank of India issued memorandum dated 10/11-3-1998 to the effect that Vijay Kumar is to perform duty only for 18 hours in a week and stated therein that appointment shall continue on 1/2 of the scale of the sweeper. Feeling aggrieved against the said action of the manager industrial dispute has been sought to be raised before Regional/assistant Labour Commission, Central, Kanpur for violation of Section 9-A item No. 4 and others read with Section 2 (ra) of I. D. Act, 1947. Complaing was also made that on 13-6-1998 that letter has been written asking him not put signature on the attendance register at the time of his arrival and departure in the Bank so that actual working hours could not be claimed or checked. After said complaint being made by petitioner as narrated in Annexure-3 objection had been filed to the same by the Bank. Conciliation Officer proceeded with the matter but same failed and conciliation officer submitted his failure of conciliation report on 31-1-2000. Therefore, after receiving the failure report of conciliation officer, communication has been sent by Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and therein it has been contended that prima facie the same Ministry does not consider the dispute fit for adjudication for following reasons : "in the present case the sweeping area of the Branch is as much as to the entitlement of half scale of wages and accordingly 18 hours in a week was fixed according to bank policy for appointment of sweeper at any branch. "
(3.) SRI Kshetresh Chander Shukla, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and SRI Ramesh Singh, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Union of India. Sri Kshetresh Chander Shukla, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case Central Government has totally failed to exercise power of reference vested in it and on totally unjustifiable and irrelevant ground which was not at all the issue involved, power of refusal has been exercised without there being any law full material in support of the same.;