- (1.) THE petitioner a Company incorporated in the U. S. A. with limited liabilities and having its Branch. Office at 21 Old Court House Street, calcutta, has obtained this Rule against an order of reference made under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), which is in Annexure I to the petition.
(2.) THE petitioner company carries on business inter alia, of banking. It is their case that in or about 1970, an agreement was entered into between them and the American Express Employees Union, which incidentally was the only union representing the petitioner's entire work at Calcutta and formed a temporary pool of workmen for the purpose of filling up purely temporary vacancies arising out of and under sickleave availed of by their permanent workmen. Such agreement, appears to have been implemented in 1970, when a list of approximate eight persons to form a temporary pool, for the purpose of filling up temporary leave vacancies, was made. The petitioner has stated that whenever such thing or any occasion arose, they took the help of the employees from the pool and that too strictly on rotational basis. It is their case that the creation of such temporary pool was creating a lot of administrative difficulties and the same was abolished by another agreement they have also stated that in terms of the agreement of 1970, the respondents nos. 3 to 7 were enlisted in the temporary-pool and they were provided with temporary appointment from time to time, on the basis as indicated above.
(3.) IN 1973, there was a fresh agreement after due negotiations between the petitioner and the Union as aforesaid and it was ultimately agreed that the temporary pool would be abolished on. recruitment of five permanent Workmen in the clerical cadre. This agreement regarding the abolition of the temporary pool and the recruitment of five workmen in the permanent clerical cadre, was incorporated in the letter of 3rd August 1973, and such agreement has also been stated to be acted upon and is still binding on the petitioner and its existing workmen. It is the case of the petitioner that all subsequent appointment temporary employment and recruitment in the permanent vacancies in their organisation, are guided by the subsequent agreement and recruitment in permanent positions are done by them on the basis of a formula arrived at between the management and the Union concerned and in course of preparation of such formula, they called all the persons enlisted in temporary pool, for a written test, with a view to give them equal opportunities along with other applicants from the Employment Exchange. The respondent employees, according to the petitioner, were also given due and equal opportunities but their performance were not satisfactory. As such none of them were called for interview. On that, a representation to the Regional Commissioner (Central) was made for necessary intervention and ultimately, such authorities did not consider the action of the management to be unjustified or mala fide and therefore, they refused to refer the matter for adjudication by their communication dated 19th july, 1974, in Annexure 'g'. Thereafter, it is stated that without any reference or further reference from the Government, the petitioners were served with a notice in Annexure H, which is dated 11th november, 1974, from the Presiding officer, Central Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, respondent no. 2 and they have stated that from, such communication, they have come to know for the first time that the Government of India have referred the matter to the same Tribunal, a purported industrial dispute between the company and their workmen, by an order of reference No. L/12012/24/ 7/lr III dated 21st October 1974.;