- (1.) In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders passed by respondents No. 1-Union of India declining to make a reference of the Industrial dispute on 18.8.1999. The petitioners also seek a writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1. Union of India to make the reference of the industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
(2.) The State Bank of India Staff Congress, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") sought a reference of the industrial dispute on behalf of petitioner No. 2-Ranjit Singh described as Canteen Boy-cum-Cash Coolie (hereinafter referred to as "the workman"). The workman claims that he was appointed by State Bank of India-respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') at Bilaspur, H.P. to perform the duties of a messenger, but was designated as Canteen Boy in the year 1988. The workman, in addition to the duties of the messenger, water boy, cash coolie was also required to prepare and serve tea to the employees of the bank twice a day. The respondent-Bank used to pay the wages of Canteen Boy through the Local Implementation Committee constituted by the Respondent-Bank. For the duties performed as Messenger, Water Boy and Cash Coolie, the workman was paid separately from the Bank's petty cash register. It was further pleaded that workman is being paid a meagre sum of Rs. 700/- per month for the preparation of tea and Rs. 8/- per day for the duties of messenger/water-boy/cash coolie. The Trade Union raised an industrial dispute in the year 1996. However, the aforesaid dispute was closed as the Management assured to absorb the workman. Thereafter, the Bank did not honour its commitment of absorption and initiated a move to terminate the services of the workman. Thereafter, the Union again raised an industrial dispute by making a representation on 29.7.1993. The Union claimed on behalf of the workman full back-wages and absorption in the service of the Bank as he had completed 10 years of continuous service.
(3.) The Bank, in its reply, stated that the workman was not an employee of the Bank, but that of the Local Implementation Committee. It was further stated that the work of Cash Coolie was entrusted to the workman as he was easily available. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chandigarh submitted failure report of the Conciliation Proceedings on 26.4.1999. It was observed that both the sides had been given various suggestions for amicable settlement of the dispute. Both the parties are adamant on their respective stands. Hence no settlement could be arrived at. Thus the conciliation proceedings were declared as failure. On the basis of this conciliation report, the Union of India has declined to make the reference with the following observations :- "The Bank has not extended any appointment, conditions of service, and as such the claim is frivolous.";