Dismissed

Vijaya Bank Workers` Orgn. Rep v. 1.VIJAYA Bank, Rep.by Genl.

Madras HC15 Dec 2016WP/3796/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an alleged outsourcing of cheque clearing via contract system violating Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held the grievance is now infructuous due to technological changes (MICR/Core Banking) eliminating physical cheque collection needs and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as infructuous. No costs awarded.

Vijaya Bank Workers` Orgn. Rep Vs 1.VIJAYA… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 15.12.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

W.P.No.3796 of 2003

¶6

Vijaya Bank Workers' Organisation, (regn.No.DRT(B-I)/TUA/43/77-78)

¶7

rep.by its Deputy General Secretary, 60/2, Big Street, Triplicane,

¶8

Chennai-600 005 .... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.Vijaya Bank,

¶11

rep.by General Manager(P & TMD) Head Office 41/2 M.G.Road,

¶12

Bangalore-560 001

¶13

2.Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(C-SZ), Office of the Deputy C.L.C.(C-SZ) Shram Sadan, III Cross, III Main, II Phase, Tumkur Road, Yeshwantpur,

¶14

Bangalore-560 022 .......Respondents

¶15

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from in any manner altering the existing service condition by bringing in contract system for clearing operations in City Branches of Chennai Region contrary to Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and to maintain status quo till the dispute raised by the petitioner is adjudicated and decided by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.C.Seethapathy

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is Vijaya Bank Workers' Organisation, representing the interest of the clerical and award staff of the bank. It is the grievance of the petitioner that its members were employed for physical collection and delivery of cheques from various branches for onward delivery to the Central Clearing House and that the bank was out sourcing the job to provide courier companies. Hence, the writ petition.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner organisation and Mr.C.Sitapathy for the respondent bank.

¶22

Admittedly much water has flown under the bridge after 2003 inasmuch as clearing is being done now under MICR system and there is no necessity for physical collection for cheque leaves from various branches. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive, due to the advent of Information Technology and Core Banking.

¶23

In view of the above, this writ petition is closed as infructuous. No costs.

¶24

Msk
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.General Manager(P & TMD)
Vijaya Bank,
Head Office 41/2 M.G.Road,
Bangalore-560 001
2.Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner(C-SZ),
Office of the Deputy C.L.C.(C-SZ)
Shram Sadan, III Cross, III Main,
II Phase, Tumkur Road, Yeshwantpur,
Bangalore-560 022
W.P.No.3796 of 2003
UG(CO)
RVR 20/01/2017

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vijaya Bank Workers` Orgn. Rep v. 1.VIJAYA Bank, Rep.by Genl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Bank Workers` Orgn. Rep v. 1.VIJAYA Bank, Rep.by Genl.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandran Ratnaswami Vs the Inspector of Police

Chandran Ratnaswami Vs the Inspector of Police

M/S.Southern Enterprises Vs Govt of India

The Southern Switchgear Ltd. Vs Appellate Authority for

India Deisya Congress Thuppura Vs the Commissioner

D.Balraj. Vs 1.THE Govt.of Tamilnadu, Rep.