ICICI Bank Employees' Union v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Gandhi Nagar, Madurai.2.ICICI Bank Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.11.2008C O R A M :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRUW.P.No.9843 of 2000ICICI Bank Employees' Union, rep.by itsGeneral Secretary Mr.M.Lakshmanan,No.758, Anna Salai, Madras-2. .. Petitioner(cause title amended vide order in WPMP.No.6478 of 2002, dated 01.9.2003)-vs-1.Additional Registrar of Trade Unions,Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Gandhi Nagar, Madurai.2.ICICI Bank Limited, rep.by itsSenior Executive Vice President,(HR Department), Old No.758, (New No.192), Anna Salai,Madras-600 002.3.M.Jayakumar .. Respondents (R3 impleaded as per order of court dt. 12.12.2000 in WMP.19273 of 2000)PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling forthe records of the first respondent in Ref.No.B5/11696/99, dated30.5.2000 and the consequential proceedings in Ref.No.B5/11616/99,dated 06.6.2000 issued to the second respondent and quash the same.For petitioner: Mr.V.Prakash, SC for Ms.G.Ramapriya For respondents: Mr.Mr.Arumugam, Spl.GP(R1) Mr.Sanjay Mohan for M/s.Ramasubramaniam Associates (R2) Mr.N.Maninarayanan (R3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R The petitioner is a registered trade union representing theemployees of the erstwhile Bank of Madura, which has been sincetaken over by the ICICI Bank. The petitioner has taken out anapplication in WPMP.6478 of 2000 to amend the causetitle giving thecorrect description of the parties. Subsequent to the filing of thewrit petition, the third respondent got himself impleaded by anorder dated 12.12.2000. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to challenge the orderof the first respondent dated 30.5.2000 as well as theconsequential proceedings dated 06.6.2000 and to set aside thesame.3. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on20.6.2000 and subsequently it was admitted on 13.7.2000. Pendingthe writ petition, an interim stay was granted of the impugnedproceedings which was also made absolute on 03.1.2003.4. Though an application was taken out in WPMP.No.6479 of 2000seeking for a direction to the first respondent to register theamendments to the bye-laws including the amendment made to clause 4(a) of the bye-laws, the said application was rejected by thisCourt on 01.9.2003.5. The petitioner union is a registered Trade Union withRegistration No.3233. It is also affiliated to the Trade UnionFederation known as 'All India Bank Employees' Association'(AIBEA). It is seen from the records that the third respondentfloated a rival union with the same name as that of the petitionerand got it registered with Registration No.1147/MDU. Therefore, thepetitioner union filed a writ petition against the third respondentand his newly formed trade union before this Court beingW.P.No.7391 of 1998. This Court by an order dated 05.1.2000 allowedthe writ petition. It was held that the Certificate of Registrationobtained by the third respondent was contrary to section 7(2) ofthe Trade Union's Act, 1926. Therefore, the registration was setaside. This provoked the third respondent to send a complaintagainst the petitioner union along with two others on 27.4.2000. 6. The first respondent is the Additional Registrar of TradeUnions. He is also a Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Madurai.After receiving the complaint from the third respondent, he passedthe impugned order dated 30.5.2000. 7. In the impugned order, it is stated that the bye-laws ofthe society had authorised the petitioner to collect only Rs.6/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as a monthly subscription from the clerical staff and Rs.4/- fromthe sub staff. But, however, they had collected a sum of Rs.10/-from clerical staff and Rs.6 from subordinate staff and watchmenfrom 01.1.1995 to 31.8.1997 towards monthly subscription. From01.9.1997, they were collecting Rs.25/- from clerical staff andRs.15/- from subordinate staff and watchmen. Thereby, thepetitioner trade union had violated Section 28(3) of the TradeUnions Act, 1926. It was also brought to their notice that theyhave not amended the bye-laws. Therefore, a direction was alsoissued to refund the excess monthly subscription collected to itsmembers within 30 days, failing which, they were warned thatsuitable action will be taken under section 10(b) of the TradeUnions Act. Consequent upon the said communication, the firstrespondent also sent a letter dated 06.6.2000 to the erstwhile Bankof Madura Limited asking them to confirm whether any excesssubscription was collected and paid to the petitioner union.8. Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel had submitted that thefirst respondent Additional Registrar of Trade Unions has no powereither under section 28 or any other provisions of the Trade UnionsAct, 1926 to issue the direction found in the impugned order. Theright of the petitioner union to collect various amounts from theemployees towards subscription and other expenditure is fullyauthorised by the general body of the union. A disgruntled elementlike the third respondent who had also floated a rival union cannotobject to the affairs of the present union. The attempt by thefirst respondent to receive a complaint from the first respondentwho has admittedly floated a rival union cannot be entertained bythe first respondent. In any event, inasmuch as any employee of thesecond respondent bank who are members of the petitioner unionhave never made a complaint regarding the socalled excessdeduction, the first respondent cannot entertain such complaints. 9. Even otherwise the relationship between the union and themembers are purely contractual and they being members of theregistered union are bound by the decisions of the general body.The Trade Unions Act does not prohibit any deduction towards thegeneral fund of the trade union and if there was any aggrievedperson who feels that there was excess deduction, he can onlyapproach an appropriate Civil Court.10. He also submitted that the general body of the trade unionvide its meeting held on 13th and 14th April 2001 had passed anamendment revising the monthly subscription from the members fromRs.25/- to Rs.35/- for the clerical staff and Rs.15/- to 25/- forthe subordinate staff. This general body resolution amending thebye-laws were forwarded to the first respondent with a coveringletter dated 23.4.2001. But, however, the first respondent, for thereasons best known to him, instead of registering the bye-laws, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ returned the proposal with a covering letter dated 09.5.2001. Hequoted the pendency of the present writ petition for the return ofthe request. The fact that the general body of the petitioner unionin its earlier meeting held on 17th and 18th December 1994 hadrevised the subscription rates from the earlier subscription wasnot denied. The further revision made had the approval of thegeneral body dated 24th and 25th August 1997 was also not denied. Anattempt was made by the third respondent to state that theRegistrar of the Trade Union being the authority to implement theTrade Unions Act, 1926, has every right to question the violationof the bye-laws adopted by a trade union does not draw any supportfrom the Act.11. It cannot be said that the action of the petitioner unionhad anyway contravened the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. Ascontended by the learned Senior Counsel that each year thepetitioner union has filed the return in form-E read with Section28. No objection has been taken by the Registrar of Trade Unionsall these years. The decision of the trade union to collect theenhanced subscription was taken at its general body meetings. Allthe employees who are its members have contributed the same withoutany protest. The attempt made by the third respondent is to createunnecessary confusion. In any event, section 28(3) quoted by thetrade union Registrar has no relevance. If there was any violationin Form E return, only penalty can be imposed. The direction issuedby the Trade Union Registrar to refund the amount is beyond hisjurisdiction. Further, when the union authorised by its generalbody has filed amendments to its bye-laws for registration, thefirst respondent has returned the said proposal quoting thependency of the writ petition has no legal basis. 12. Though the first respondent was served, there has been noreply from his side. The contentions raised by the petitioner unionis well founded and merits acceptance. A perusal of the TradeUnions Act 1926 and the rules framed thereunder do not clothe theRegistrar with any such power ordering refund of the amountscollected pursuant to the authorisation given by the general body.The issue is purely between the members and their trade union. Inthe absence of any member raising a dispute before an appropriateforum, the impugned orders are invalid and are liable to be setaside. The Additional Registrar of the Trade Union, namely, thefirst respondent, having received the annual returns in Form-E allthese years never questioned the statement of accounts shown inthe said return. He cannot overnight wake up and direct refund ofamounts allegedly collected in excess. There was no allegation ofmisappropriation of funds or that it was squandered without beingaccounted had been raised by the third respondent or found as areason in the impugned order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. Hence, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugnedorder of the first respondent will stand set aside. The firstrespondent is hereby directed to receive the application foramendment of the bye-laws sent with the covering letter dated23.4.2001 or any new amendment proposed to the bye-laws andregister the same in accordance with law. There will be no order asto costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.jsTo1.The Additional Registrar of Trade Unions,Deputy Commissioner of Labour,Gandhi Nagar, Madurai.1 cc to Mrs. G. Padmapriya, Advocate, SR. 65557W.P.No.9843 of 2000