Disposed

Central Bank of India Employees ' Union (Kerala) v. Union of India

Kerala HC27 May 2022WP(C)/15547/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a writ petition by a bank union challenging the bank's directive to deploy non-subordinate staff outside their districts. The Court held that deployment under the Bipartite Settlements allows transfers up to 100km outside a district and directed the bank to effect such deployment following the settlement's procedural safeguards.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, directing the second respondent to effect deployment of staff pursuant to Ext.P2 in strict compliance with the relevant clauses of the Bipartite Settlements and Schedu

Central Bank of India Employees ' Union… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 15547 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ' UNION (KERALA) (AFFILIATED TO ALL INDIA BANK EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION THROUGH AICBEF & AKBEF), REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, CENTRAL OFFICE, C.S.I. BUILDING, M.G ROAD, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001 BY ADVS. NIRMAL.S VEENA HARI IRENE ELZA SOJI RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN ANJANA A.

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP, IIIRD FLOOR, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶9

2 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDER MUKHI NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021

¶10

3 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL HEAD, CHENNAI ZONE, MONDIATH ROAD, EGGMOORE, CHENNAI-600 008

¶11

4 THE GENERAL MANAGER, HRD, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDER MUKHI NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021

¶12

5 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, 1ST FLOOR, METRO PALACE, OPP. ERNAKULAM NORTH RAILWAY STATION, KOCHI-682 018

¶13

6 THE REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CSI BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, PULIMOODU JUNCTION, MG ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 BY ADVS.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶15

-2-

¶16

K.M.ANEESH K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) ADARSH KUMAR BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM DILEEP CHANDRAN SHASHANK DEVAN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

ASGI S. MANU

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶20

24.5.2022, THE COURT ON 27.05.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶22

-3-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2022

¶25

The petitioner, a trade union of bank

¶26

employees affiliated to the All India Bank Employees' Association, is aggrieved by the decision of the management of the second respondent Bank to transfer/deploy clerical employees who have completed three years of service to branches in the District or to a distance of 100 Kms. The decision is alleged to be in violation of the Bipartite Settlement arrived between the managements of banks and the unions representing the employees. The essential details for deciding the lis are as under;

¶27

The service conditions of the employees of the second respondent bank are governed by the Bipartite Settlement entered between the Indian Banks Association representing the management of

¶28

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶29

-4-

¶30

50 banks and the All India Bank Employees Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees and other unions. The Bipartite Settlement has statutory force in the light of Sections 2(p) and 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 r/w Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957. As per Clause 32 of the 7^th Bipartite Settlement, a consensus was arrived at with respect to the deployment of staff in the banking industry. Clause 32 is extracted here under for easy reference;

¶31

“Clause 32— It is generally perceived that there is scope for redeployment of staff in banking industry. There are pockets of surplus/deficit in areas of operation in different sectors in different banks. It is desirable that these imbalances in deployment of staff are corrected. As it will not be possible/practicable to arrive at a uniform policy in this regard, having regard to the situation varying from bank to bank, the parties hereby agree that the matter be

¶32

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶33

resolved at the level of each bank. Bank level agreements, if any, as of now may require appropriate amendments which shall be mutually settled.”

¶34

In the 8^th Bipartite Settlement, the following clarification was brought about with respect to the deployment of 'non-subordinate staff' in banks;

¶35

“In continuation of clause 32 of seventh bipartite settlement dated 27 March 2000, it is agreed between the parties that deployment of non-subordinate staff in banks which are parties to the settlement shall be in accordance to the terms and conditions set forth in Schedule VI to this settlement”

¶36

Schedule VI to the Bipartite settlement mentioned in the above clause, reads as under;

¶37

“ SCHEDULE – VI Deployment of Staff

¶38

(i)A workman in the non-subordinate cadre is liable to be deployed anywhere within a “District‟, irrespective of the distance involved.

¶39

(ii)In cases necessitating deployment

¶40

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶41

-6-

¶42

outside the District, the workman concerned may be deployed to any branch/office of the bank situated outside the District upto a distance not exceeding 100 km. from his present place of posting.

¶43

(iii)Bank may identify, based on length of stay at the centre/branch/office, the number of workmen employees, to be redeployed from each centre/ branch/ office to meet its requirements.

¶44

(iv)The period of deployment shall be 2 years in a difficult centre decided by the bank in accordance with the Government guidelines and 3 years in other centres.

¶45

(v)Repatriation to the original centre shall be after serving in the deployed centre for a period as in (iv) above. In case it is not administratively possible for the bank to repatriate the employee to his original centre after the above period, the employee may be required to give 3 centres of his choice so that he can be transferred to any one of the 3 centres opted by him.

¶46

(vi)Female employees above the age of 55 and male employees above the age of 56 shall be exempt from redeployment. However, if the required and eligible number of employees are not available to be deployed

¶47

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶48

-7-

¶49

in terms of the Settlement, the age norms as above may be suitably relaxed upto the age of 58 years so as to ensure that the required and eligible number of employees are deployed to be identified centres. (vii)Employees having mentally retarded / spastic children, certified as such by the attending Doctor, may be deployed only at centres where specialised treatment for such children and special facilities their schooling are available.

¶50

(viii)Employees affected by serious ailments requiring specialised treatment, as certified by the attending Doctor, will be deployed only at centres where medical facilities for treatment of such ailments are available.

¶51

(ix)Redeployment of physically handicapped/ challenged employees shall be in accordance with the extant Government guidelines.

¶52

(x)A workman in the non-subordinate cadre so long as he serves in the deployed centre shall draw a lump sum amount of Rs.400/p.m. (not ranking for any other benefit) besides protection of emoluments drawn at the original centre. These shall cease on the employee‟s repatriation to the original centre.

¶53

(xi)The above lump sum amount is not

¶54

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶55

-8-

¶56

payable in case of transfers made at the request of the employee.

¶57

(xii)In North-Eastern States, banks may decide on the level and extent of deployment having regard to their requirements within the above norms.

¶58

(xiii)The above provisions on deployment are without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 535 and 536 of the Sastry Award relating to transfer of workmen.

¶59

(xiv)The above provisions on deployment shall be the minimum applicable to all the banks which are parties to this Settlement. Parties agree that any existing bank-level settlement on transfer or deployment whose provisions are restrictive and not upto the minimum provisions on deployment as mentioned above will be modified/terminated as per procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act so as to give effect to the above-mentioned provisions on deployment. (xv)Any bank which is a party to this Settlement and having bank-level Settlement on transfer or deployment may, however, modify and improve upon the above provisions to suit the needs of the bank ensuring, however, that the norms relating to the geographical minimum area of deployment, period of stay at the deployed

¶60

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶61

-9-

¶62

centre, conditions for repatriation as mentioned hereinabove are not relaxed or diluted in any manner. (xvi)In banks which are parties to this Settlement where bank level settlements / policies on transfer or deployment of workmen exist which provide for transferability of employees over a larger geographical area, such bank level settlements on transfer or deployment shall remain operative.”

¶63

On 28.04.2022, the General Manager-HRD of

¶64

the second respondent Bank issued communication (Ext.P1) to all Zonal Heads pointing out that, in spite of repeated directions, award staffs, including those posted in sensitive positions, have not been rotated/deployed for a considerable period. The Zonal Heads were alerted that in terms of CVC guidelines, the staff working in the sensitive posts should be identified and strictly rotated every year to avoid developing vested interest. It was directed that deployment

¶65

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶66

-10-

¶67

of non-subordinate employees should be carried out as per the provisions of the 8^th bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005. The main features of which are;

¶68

“ A workman in the non-subordinate cadre is liable to be deployed anywhere within a “District‟, irrespective of the distance involved.

¶69

In cases necessitating deployment outside the District, the workman concerned may be deployed to any branch/office of the bank situated outside the District upto a distance not exceeding 100 km. from his present place of posting.

¶70

Female employees above the age of 55 and male employees above the age of 56 shall be exempt from redeployment. However, if the required and eligible number of employees are not available to be deployed in terms of the Settlement, the age norms as above may be suitably relaxed upto the age of 58 years so as to ensure that the required and eligible number of employees are deployed to be identified centres .”

¶71

The zonal heads were directed to comply with the

¶72

transfer norms while processing the

¶73

rotation/deployment of the non-subordinate staff

¶74

and to complete the exercise on or before 09.05.2022.

¶75

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶76

-11-

¶77

In accordance with the directive, 48 nonsubordinate staff in Cochin and 60 in Trivandrum

¶78

were identified for rotation, as they had completed 3 years in the present branch. Faced

¶79

with Exts. P1 and P2, the petitioner gave Ext.P3 representation and its parent trade union issued

¶80

Ext.P4 strike notice. The petitioner also approached the Labour Commissioner for

¶81

conciliation, resulting in Ext.P7 notice to the second respondent Bank. As hasty steps were

¶82

being taken in spite of the notices and the conciliation initiated, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶83

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P1 and quash the original of the same.

¶84

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and quash the original of the same.

¶85

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such

¶86

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶87

-12-

¶88

other writ order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 6 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation dated 03.05.2022 as expeditiously as possible.

¶89

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction declaring that any clause in Ext.P1 and P2 transfer policy in contravention to the bipartite settlements entered into by the bank and the internal agreements of the bank is illegal.”

¶90

Adv. Nirmal.S, learned Counsel for the

¶91

petitioner made the following submissions;

¶92

The Bipartite Settlements have statutory force. The 7^th and 8^th Bipartite Settlements provides for deployment of surplus staff to deficit centres. In the guise of deployment, the bank is now transferring the non-subordinate staff to branches outside their districts, up to a distance of 100 kms. Ext.P13 stipulates that the non-subordinate staff can only be transferred on rotation form one branch to another within a station/centre every five years if there are more

¶93

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶94

-13-

¶95

than one branch in a station/centre. In station/centre with only one branch, the staff should be rotated from one department to another every 6 to 12 months. Pursuant to Ext. P1 and similar notices issued to other zonal offices, a total of 4325 employees have been transferred and

¶96

the non-subordinate staff in Cochin and Trivandrum alone are spared in view of the interim order of status quo issued by this Court. It is contended that the second respondent has achieved its nefarious objective of transferring non-subordinate staff by construing the meaning of the terms ‘rotation’ and ‘deployment’ as one

¶97

and the same and equating those terms with ‘transfer’. Even in its counter affidavit, the

¶98

second respondent has stated that the term 'rotation' has been used interchangeably with the term 'deployment' and can thus be construed only

¶99

as transfer, as contemplated under the

¶100

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶101

-14-

¶102

Settlements. It is submitted that there are no surplus staff in Kerala and on the other hand, more than 150 vacancies are existing consequent to death, retirement and promotion of the incumbents. The petitioner and the United Forum of Central Bank Unions have approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner for conciliation. Despite the mandate of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the 2^nd respondent has shown the audacity to

¶103

issue Ext.P9, directing to relieve all transferred staff with immediate effect. Hence, the petitioners have no other recourse than to seek the intervention of this Court under Article 226.

¶104

Senior Counsel S.Sreekumar, appearing for

¶105

the respondents on instructions, made the following submissions in reply;

¶106

Ext. P1 assailed in the writ petition does

¶107

not pertain to Kerala circle, hence, the

¶108

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶109

-15-

¶110

petitioner, which is confined to Kerala, has no cause of action for approaching this Court. In the 8^th bipartite settlement, it is clearly

¶111

stated that the settlement shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Schedule VI to the settlement. The deputation of non-subordinate staff is being affected strictly in terms of Schedule VI. The contention that the Bank is attempting to transfer the staff by terming it as deployment is baseless. In its counter affidavit the bank has made it clear that the proposed deployment of staff, as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2, is to be carried out in absolute compliance with the stipulations in the Bipartite settlement, with special focus on Schedule VI. Except in Kerala, no complaint as to the proposed deployment has been raised and the staff of other Circles have been redeployed. Deployment of staff is essential for the smooth functioning of the

¶112

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶113

-16-

¶114

understaffed and overburdened branches and the

¶115

policy decisions in that regard, taken in the exigencies of administration, should not be interfered with.

¶116

The binding and statutory nature of Bipartite Settlement arrived at between the employer bank and employee unions cannot be disputed in the light of the relevant provisions, viz, Sections 2(p) and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 58 of the Industrial

¶117

Disputes (Central) Rules. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder for easy reference;

¶118

settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to 5[an officer authorised in this behalf by] the appropriate Government and

¶119

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶120

-17-

¶121

the conciliation officer.

¶122

Sec.18 - Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding .- 2[(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. (2) 3[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award] which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.] 4[(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act 5[or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of Section 10A] or 6[an award 7[of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on- (a) all parties to the industrial dispute; (b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, 1[arbitrator,] 2[Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause; (c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to

¶123

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶124

-18-

¶125

which the dispute relates; (d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.

¶126

Rule 58 . Memorandum of settlement .— (1) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings or otherwise, shall be in Form H. (2) The settlement shall be signed by— (a) in the case of an employer, by the employer himself, or by his authorised agent, or when the employer is an incorporated company or other body corporate, by the agent, manager or other principal officer of the corporation; 1 [(b) in the case of the workmen, by any officer of a trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at meeting of the workmen held for the purpose;] 2 [(c) in the case of the workman in an industrial dispute under section 2A of the Act, by the workman concerned.] Explanation.—In this rule “officer” means any of the following officers, namely:— (a) the President; (b) the Vice-President; (c) the Secretary (including the General Secretary); (d) a Joint Secretary; (e) any

¶127

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶128

-19-

¶129

other officer of the trade union authorised in this behalf by the President and Secretary of Union. (3) Where a settlement is arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding the Conciliation Officer shall send a report thereof to the Central Government together with a copy of the memorandum of settlement signed by the parties to the dispute. (4) Where a settlement is arrived at between an employer and his workmen otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding before a Board or a Conciliation Officer, the parties to the settlement shall jointly send a copy thereof to the Central Government, the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) concerned.”

¶130

The dispute herein centres around the question whether Exts.P8 and P9 are issued in compliance of the relevant clause in the Bipartite Settlements. A reading of Clause 32 of the 7^th Bipartite Settlement shows that it deals with redeployment of staff in general. The intention behind the Clause is to correct the

¶131

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶132

-20-

¶133

imbalances in surplus/deficit in different centres. Clause 31 of the 8^th Bipartite Settlement is in continuation of Clause 32 above.

¶134

Therein, parties have agreed that deployment of non- subordinate staff in banks shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Schedule VI to the settlement. Clauses 1 and 2 of Schedule VI provides for deployment of non-subordinate staff anywhere within a district irrespective of the distance involved and to any branch/office of the bank situated outside the district up to a distance not exceeding 100 Kms from his present place of posting.

¶135

On a conjoint reading of the relevant clauses in the 7^th and 8^th Bipartite Settlements, it is evident that the bank can deploy the surplus staff to deficit centres for the purpose of curing the imbalances in the branches/offices. Such deployment can even be outside the District,

¶136

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶137

limited to a distance of 100 kms.

¶138

The term 'surplus' and 'deficit' is not defined anywhere. The meaning of surplus in ordinary parlance is something in excess, more than what is needed or used. Likewise, deficit means 'a short fall vis-a-vis the requirement. In banking parlance, surplus with respect to staff can occur when the number of staff in a branch/office in excess of the sanctioned posts or when service of all the existing staff is not required to carry out the work. Likewise, deficit

¶139

can occur when the number of staff in a branch/office is less than the sanctioned posts or when the existing staff is not sufficient to handle the amount of work. The employer can deploy the staff for balancing the surplus and deficit in different centres for ensuring the smooth functioning of those centres.

¶140

As rightly pointed out by the learned

¶141

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶142

-22-

¶143

Counsel for the petitioner, the manner in which Exts.P1 and P2 are worded creates an impression of there being an attempt to transfer the nonsubordinate staff in the guise of deployment. As evident from Ext.P13, non-subordinate staff can be transferred only from one branch/office to another branch/office within a station/centre, that too at intervals of 5 years. They cannot be transferred outside the District and before completion of five years. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and the assertion in the counter affidavit of the second respondent makes

¶144

it clear that, although the term 'rotation/transfer' is used interchangeably with the term 'deployment' under the impugned orders, only deployment of staff, in strict adherence to

¶145

the stipulations under the bipartite settlements, is being affected. If so, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner stands

¶146

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶147

-23-

¶148

allayed.

¶149

The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the second respondent to effect deployment under Ext.P2, adhering to the relevant Clauses in the Bipartite Settlements and following the procedure under Schedule VI to the 8^th Bipartite Settlement. The disputes, if any arising from such deployment, can be resolved in the conciliation proceedings pending before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central),

Trivandrum.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶155

-24-

¶156

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15547/2022

¶157

PETITIO Exhibit	NER EXHI P1	BITS TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF CIRCULAR NO.CO/HRD/SAD/2022-23/2016 DATED 28.04.2022
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ZO/CHEN/HRD/ 2022-23/136 DATED 02.05.2022
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.05.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF STRIKE DATED 03.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT & SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER TRADE UNION
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04.05.2022 MADE TO THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 4.05.2022 MADE TO THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, COCHIN
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.07(03) 2022/RLC/TVM DATED 4.05.2022
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.CO/HRD/SAD/2022-23/208 dated 28/04/2022
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, HRD
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/05/2022
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR LETTER NO.CO:HRD:IRP:2022-23:04 DATED 19/05/2022
Exhibit	P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/05/2022 ISSUED BY CONVENER OF UFCBU
Exhibit	P13	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR LETTER NO.CO:HRD:IRP:2013-14:39 DATED 11/12/2013
Exhibit	P14	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED

¶158

W.P.(C) No.15547 of 2022

¶159

-25-

¶160

	20/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL, MUMBAI) DATED 20/05/2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit R2(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY ALL INDIA CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION TO CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit R2(b)	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 07-11-2006.
Exhibit R2(c)	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 15-10-2010.
Exhibit R2(d)	A TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 2-06- 2005 CONTAINING SCHEDULE VI OF THE SAID SETTLEMENT.
Exhibit R2(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10- 05-2022 OF THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI.
Exhibit R2(f)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13-05-2022 ISSUED TO THE CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI.
PETITIONER EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, HRD
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12/05/2022
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. CO HRD IRP 2022-23:04 DATED 19/05/2022
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 19/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE CONVENER OF UFCBU
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR LETTER NO. CD-HRD:IRP:2013-14:39 DATED 11/12/2013
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL MUMBAI) DATED 20/05/2022

Central Bank of India Employees ' Union (Kerala) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India Employees ' Union (Kerala) v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathew Varghese Vs the Chairman Cum Managing Director

Gireeshkumar a. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Vishnu v.U, Vs State of Kerala

Bindu P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Ganga Devi C Vs Regional Cancer Centre (Rcc)

Ajithkumar.P.K Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm)