Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (for short, 'Act of 1926'), has laid this writ petition praying therein under -mentioned reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order the impugned letters dt. 19.05.15 (annex.5) and dt. 12.06.15 (annex.6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed that the respondent bank may please be directed to permit participation of the honorary members office bearers of the petitioner union in the negotiations with the management of the respondent bank including before Zonal Management. Any other order may also kindly be passed which appears to be just in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated facts of the case are that petitioner -Union is duly recognized by respondent -State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (for short, 'Bank') having its affiliation to All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA). Ventilating its grievances against impugned action of the respondent -Bank, it is averred in the writ petition that the management of the Bank has invited only serving employee members of the petitioner -union to participate in discussions/negotiations before initiation of strike. As per the petitioner -union, at its behest, a notice of strike was served on the management of the Bank in advance whereupon the Bank had invited representatives of the petitioner -union for discussions/negotiations by restricting the representation of the petitioner -union through serving employee office bearers only and putting an embargo vis   -vis retired employees, who are members/office bearers of the petitioner -union. While referring to constitution/bye -laws of the petitioner -union, it is submitted that the same is in consonance and conformity with Section 22 of the Act of 1926. Laying emphasis on Clause 5 of the bye -laws, it is averred in the writ petition that anyone can be honorary member of the union even if he is not an employee of the Bank and the only requirement for induction of someone as honorary member is his true allegiance with the aims and objects of the union. It is further averred that HONORARY MEMBER is eligible to be elected or appointed as office bearer of the union subject to provisions of the constitution and Section 22 of the Act of 1926. The elected delegates coming from the affiliate units to the conference shall constitute "General Council" of the Coordination Committee. Romping in Clause -11 of the bye -laws, the petitioner -union has submitted in the writ petition that these delegates are also eligible for being elected as office bearers of the working committee. Pointing out numerical strength of the union amongst employees of the Bank, it is stated that union is having membership of 98% of the employees of the Bank in workmen cadre so as to stake claim as sole bargaining agent. Questioning the action of the respondent -Bank, it is stated by the petitioner that since 2012 respondent -Bank has adopted a policy of calling only serving employees office bearers for discussions/negotiations with complete denial for honorary members (retired employees of the Bank).
(3.) FOR castigating impugned action of the respondent -Bank as arbitrary and unreasonable, petitioner -union has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of Madras High Court in case of L. Balasubramanian & Anr. v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. -Writ Appeal No. 2137/2013 decided on 9th January, 2014.;