- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. As prayed for by Ms. Maurya, leave is granted to correct the prayer (i) to the extent Annexures 5 to 26 instead of Annexure 5 to 21. She will incor porate the correction in the course of today.
(2.) U. P Bank Employees, Federation, a registered trade Union under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 has moved this writ petition seeking a mandamus com manding the State Government to refer the disputes in respect of the services of the workmen mentioned in the Govern ment Orders contained in Annexures 5 to 26. The brief facts giving rise to the present case was that the respondent-Bank being State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, employed concerned workmen for a period of 80 days purely on temporary measure and did not permit them to con tinue on the expiry of 80 days or lesser period. This order of termination retrenchment, as the case may be, has since been sought to be made foundation of a dispute under Section 2-A of the In dustrial Disputes Act by the individual workman, whose reference were rejected by the orders contained in Annexures 5 to 26. This reference has since been refused by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 10 of the said Act on the ground that the employer- Bank had assured that they would be giving one time opportunity to those employees who had served for less than 80 days to be absorbed through a selection process by the Bank. All the references sought by each of the individual workmen who are identically situated, were refused on the similar or identical grounds. Admittedly, the in dividual workmen has not come up against the said order. It is the Union who has sought to espouse the cause of those workmen claiming them to be members of the Union through this writ petition seek ing the relief as mentioned above. Mr. Naveen Sinha, learned Coun sel for the respondent No. 2-Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the ex tent that the Union could not have espoused the cause of the workmen since the dispute was never sought to be raised by the Union under Section 2-A. In dividual workmen having sought a refer ence under Section 2-A, it was not neces sary that the Union should be a party to it and that the Union having been nowhere connected with the reference cannot now take up the cause of the workmen when the workmen themselves have not come forward. In fact the present reference sought for by the Union is a camouflage and wholly academic in nature. The Union normally represents the members of the industry whereas an individual workmen who was involved in the present case not being member of the Staff of the Bank by way of their casual service for less than 80 days, cannot be a member of the Union and as such Union cannot take up their causes. Therefore, according to him, this writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) MS. Mahima Maurya, learned Counsel for the petitioner had resisted the said objection on the ground that the con cept of class action or representative litigation as understood in ordinary com mon law, is not attracted or available in respect of a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act where class action or litiga tion has been recognized through the definition of Industrial Disputes Act re quiring a dispute between the workmen being a body of employees. It does not require any other necessity. Then again the Industrial Disputes Act, in its defini tion under Section 2-A has included an individual dispute as an industrial dispute notwithstanding the fact that the same may not be espoused by a body of workmen or union. Therefore, it is permissible for a Union to espouse the cause of individual workman collectively. According to her, in order to confront the mighty employer, the poor employees may not muster suffi cient resources to with-stand the on slough of the powerful employer and in such circumstances it is open to the Union to come to the rescue and espouse their cause collectively, which is a concept has since been well-developed under the In dustrial jurisprudence. It is necessary that in order to be a member of the union, one has to be in permanent employment. It is the relation of employer and employee which is material to become a member of a particular Union concerning a particular industry. It is not necessary that such rela tion is to be qualified through permanency of employment or any other qualification. Since there is a relation of employer and employee even for a brief period it is open to the Union to take up the cause of such employees who may seek shelter under the canopy of the union. The preliminary objection was also supported by Mr. Sinha through his elaborate arguments. The question in volved being well crystalised in the simplicity of the approach of both the learned counsel, it was thought fit that the matter should also be heard on merits and be decided together. Accordingly, both the Counsel had addressed the Court on merits as well.;