Renganathan vs The General Manager, Personal Administration Department, Indian Overseas Bank

Chitra Venkataraman, J.—The respondent herein follows a promotion policy from Clerical Cadre to the Officer Cadre in terms of a

settlement arrived at between the Management and the workmen represented by the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union. The

Memorandum of Settlement was signed u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 18.5.2001 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Central-II, Chennai, in an industrial dispute between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank, the respondent herein, and the workmen

represented by the Union in the matter of promotion from the Clerical Cadre to the Officer Cadre Junior Management Scale I.

Prior to this settlement dated 18.5.2001, there were settlements arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 22.3.1978 and on

28.7.1986. The terms of settlement right from 1978 agreed on promotion of employees by two processes i.e., Process A and Process B. While

Process A considered years of service alone as the only qualification, Process B considered academic qualification along with number of years of

service as a minimum. It may be noted that in the first of the settlements entered into on 22.3.1978, under Process A, 40% of the promotion to the

Officer Cadre was on the basis of bank seniority and interview. Employees whose qualification was less than matriculation and who have

completed 12 years of service, were considered for promotion by an interview. As regards the Process B, 60% of the total promotion was done in

respect of employees in Clerical Cadre having put at least three years of service and possessed a minimum of educational qualification and have to

undergo a test and an interview as given in the Memorandum of Settlement.

The said settlement was followed by yet another settlement dated 28.7.1986 between the respondent Management and workmen represented

by the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union. The process of promotion by selection retained the two channels, namely Process A and

Process B. 50% of the promotion through Process A was to be on the basis of a written test in Banking Law and Practice in English. Under

process A, all employees who had completed 10 years of service and above in the Clerical Cadre, except pure record keepers whose qualification

is less then VIII standard, were eligible to apply for the written test. The marks allotted included allocation for service, qualification and

performance. 50% of the promotion was reserved for Process B. The eligibility started with three years service minimum with a post graduate or

double graduate with CAIIB as minimum qualification to start with. Process B required written test for considering the candidates for promotion.

Apart from this, allotment of marks was also given for service, qualification and performance at the Branch. It is seen that the said process of

selection under Process A and and Process B continued with Circular Memos issued on 31.7.1990, 26.7.1993, 17.9.1998 and 3.11.1998.

In the year 2001, the Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at between the respondent and the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union

on 18.5.2001 in the matter of promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officer Cadre Junior Management Scale I. It was stated therein that there were

some differences between the parties who sought the intervention of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central-II, Chennai, for settlement of the

dispute; that discussions were held, keeping in mind the changing banking scenario and the challenges and the demands on the respondent herein

and its various resources to meet these challenges and to fulfil the aspirations of the employees by providing adequate and planned career, fast

track career opportunities. The existing policy for promotion was agreed to be modified to achieve the objective of quality human resources. Thus,

in terms of the settlement reached and signed on 18.5.2001, Process A and Process B selection for promotion continued to be retained for

selection of candidates for promotion to the cadre of Officer. The Process B selection mode continued with written test.

The present settlement retained two processes for promotion as before. However, as regards Process A, it varied the earlier eligibility criteria as

well as the mode of selection. Under Process A, 40% of the promotion to the Officer Cadre shall be on the basis of bank seniority and shall be on

the basis of an interview. The terms of settlement show that under Process A, those who have completed 18 years of service in the Clerical Cadre

except Record Keeper and Shroff/Record Keeper whose qualification is less than VIII standard, are eligible to apply for selection through this

process. The total number of eligible candidates called for interview shall be in the ratio of 1:4 i.e., for 100 vacancies to be filled, 400 eligible and

willing candidates according to the bank seniority in the order of dates of joining to the Clerical Cadre on the date of promotion cadre as the case

may be, are to be considered. In the event of employees having equal bank seniority, the employee who is senior in age will have preference. In the

case of Process B, the eligibility is minimum service and academic qualification with reference to the various years of service specified therein. It is

seen that that an employee completing 18 years of service can choose to come either under Process A or Process B. The essential difference

between these two channels is that, in Process A, while the number of years of service is alone the criteria and the selection only by interview, in

Process B, academic qualification is given a weightage and the selection is through a written test. The allotment of marks for Process A and

Process B are as follows:

Process A: Marks

Interview 50

Educational qualification 05

Confidential Report 05

Service 35

Weightage for Rural Service 03

Entrustment of Duties of

Special Assistant/Stenographer 02

-----

Total 100

-----

Process B: Marks

Written Test 65

Service 20

Qualification 07

Confidential Report 05

Weightage to Rural Service/

entrustment of Special

Assistant/Stenographer Duties 03

-----

Total 100

-----

Leaving aside for a moment the terms of this settlement, we may have to see the effect of a settlement reached u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

The question of binding nature of the settlement reached and the right of an individual to question the same either in his representative capacity as

one belonging to a minority. Union not governed under the settlement proceedings or in his individual capacity came up for consideration in the

decision reported in Herbertsons Limited Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Others, . The Apex Court held that in the case of a

settlement reached, the same would be binding on all workers, even if a small number of members were not members of the majority union. The

Apex Court held that when a recognised Union negotiates with the employer, the workers as individuals do not come into the picture. It is not

necessary that each individual worker should know the implications of the settlement, since a recognised union which is expected to protect the

legitimate interests of the labour, enters into a settlement in the best interests of the labour. The Apex Court held that this would be the normal rule;

however, there may be allegations of mala fides or fraud and other inducements. Until any of these facts are shown, prima facie, a settlement

arrived at in the course of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and consideration. The Apex Court further held that the settlement has to

be taken as a package deal and a settlement cannot be judged by the yardstick normally adopted in scrutinising an award in adjudication, and a

settlement cannot be scanned in bits and pieces, but has to be accepted or rejected as a whole. In view of the inherent complexities involved in

arriving at a settlement, considering the diverse situations and other contingencies, a settlement arrived at through a process of conciliation, hence,

is given a great weightage. Except in the case of mala fides shown or a patent unfairness in the terms of settlement or attribution of an oblique

motive based on definite materials, a settlement reached is prima facie considered to be in the interest of the employees.

In the decision reported in Indian Overseas Bank Officers'' Union, Madras Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Madras, , A.R.

Lakshmanan, J., as he then was, held that a settlement entered into between the parties after the negotiation and deliberation cannot, at any stretch

of imagination, be unreasonable unfair and discriminatory. What is good for the majority is the good for the minority. That is the rule of

democracy.... The settlement has to be accepted or rejected as a whole. There cannot be a midway exercise. That is precisely what the Supreme

Court has deprecated in Hebertsons Ltd. v. Workers reported in AIR 1977 SC 322. Referring to the scope of Settlement u/s 12(3) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court, in the decision reported in National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, ,

held that Section 18(1) and 18(3) divide settlements into two categories, (1) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and (2) those

arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings. The Apex Court further held ""When a settlement is arrived at during the conciliation

proceedings it is binding on the members of the Workers'' Union as laid down by Section 18(3)(d) of the Act. It would ipso facto bind all the

existing workmen who are all parties to the industrial dispute and who may not be members of the Unions that are signatories to such settlement u/s

12(3) of the Act. The Act is based on the principle of collective bargaining for resolving industrial disputes and for maintaining industrial peace. In

the decision reported in Ram Pukar Singh and Others Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and Others, , the Apex Court reiterated that a

settlement reached u/s 12(3) is binding on all workmen whether they were members of the Union or not.

Referring to the binding nature of the settlement reached in accordance with Section 12(3), in the case reported in I.T.C. Ltd. Workers Welfare

Association and Another Vs. The Management of I.T.C. Ltd. and Others, ., after referring to the various decisions, the Supreme Court held ""What

follows from a conspectus of these decisions is that a settlement which is a product of collective bargaining is entitled to due weight and

consideration, more so when a settlement is arrived at in the course of the conciliation proceedings. The settlement can only be ignored in

exceptional circumstances viz., if it is demonstrably unjust, unfair or the result of mala fides such as corrupt motives on the part of those who were

instrumental in effecting the settlement. That apart, the settlement has to be judged as a whole, taking an overall view. The various terms and

clauses of settlement cannot be examined in piecemeal and in vacuum."" In the said decision, the Apex Court also held where a settlement was

arrived by a vast majority of workers through a process of conciliation, it must be presumed to be just and fair.

In the background of the law thus declared on the efficacy of a settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, we may

have to consider the contentions of the petitioner.

The brief facts projected by the petitioner herein are that the petitioner herein is an employee in the respondent Indian overseas Bank. He

joined the services as Clerk as early as 3.1.1977. The petitioner states that he had an impeccable record of 28 years of service in the Department.

He is also the Assistant General Secretary in the All India Indian Overseas Bank Employees SC/ST Welfare Association. His seniority Roll

number is 11302 in the Clerical Cadre. He is not a member in the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union or any other Union. The allegation

of the petitioner is that from the time he got out of the above-said Union and formed a separate Union along with other employees, the members of

other Unions are not getting justice on par with the Union members of All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union in matters of promotion and are

penalised by the Management in every aspect. The petitioner had appeared for selection through Process A more than once but was not selected

at all.

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the Process A selection of candidates solely on the basis of interview as per the settlement of 2001

is an arbitrary method, in that, it seeks to promote the interest of only of those members of the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' union. The

petitioner alleges that he and other Union members are affected by the new system introduced for Process A prescribing interview alone under the

settlement dated 18.5.2001, dropping written test requirement for Process A candidates, while retaining the written test for Process B. He

submitted that there are no grounds to withdraw the pattern that prevailed prior to this settlement. Except for introducing an element of

arbitrariness, the present selection process has no merit to accept.

The petitioner states that the total number of eligible candidates to be called for interview under Process A shall be in the ratio of 1:4 i.e., if

there are 100 vacancies to be filled under this process, 400 eligible and willing candidates according to the strict bank seniority from the list are to

be called proportionately for interview. The candidates like the petitioner, even though have put in 18 years of service and above having better

academic merit, have to opt for Process B, considering the element of arbitrariness writ large in the process of selection by interview in Process A.

When candidates far junior to the petitioner are selected in Process A by interview, the entire system of selection by interview manifests colourable

method lacking in fairness.

The petitioner states that selection by interview under Process A had conferred on the juniors to the petitioner an unmerited gain over other

seniors and the procedure has been followed on 7.3.2003, 19.7.2003 and 11.7.2005, wherein, all the selected candidates in majority were from

the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union. From 2001 to 2005, the Management had neglected selecting the eligible candidates from other

Unions. In spite of representations made, the rightful claim of a large number of eligible candidates available in other Unions have been ignored. It is

stated that among the eligible candidates selected as per Circular dated 11.7.2005, no single member from the Union in which the petitioner is a

member and from other Unions were selected to the higher post. The selected persons are far junior in experience when compared to the

petitioner. The petitioner states that he appeared for the interview twice; although he did well, was not successful. Considering the scope of

arbitrariness in the assessment of a candidate under Process A, having interview alone as a testing ground in contrast to the selection by written test

in Process B which is a fool proof, abuse-free method, the selection by Process A is bad, unrealistic, arbitrary and hence, liable to be struck down

as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

On 8.12.2005, the petitioner represented that the method of selection in Process A was defective and the chances for manipulation in

awarding marks was high. In spite of a representation, there was no reply to the same. Hence, this prompted the petitioner and others to file W.P.

Nos. 11628 to 11630 of 2005, wherein, they sought for quashing of the selection made on 1.12.2005 under Circular No.91 of 2005-06 dated

1.12.2005 in respect of selection of candidates from Sl. Nos. 22 to 191, selected on the basis of Process A. It is further stated that in W.P. No.

11631 of 2005, he also challenged the settlement made on 18.5.2001 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner Central-II, Chennai, as null and

void and not binding on the petitioners therein who are not members of the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union. It is stated that no counter

affidavit has been filed so far and no stay was also granted. The promotion policy between the bank and the Union for the year 2003 was the same

as the one entered as per the settlement dated 18.5.2001. For the year 2006-07 under Circular No. 122 of 2006-07 dated 7.3.2007, the

petitioner states that the very same defective procedure is adopted which is likely to introduce an element of arbitrariness in the matter of giving

promotion, which is totally unconstitutional.

The petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 7.3.2007 issued in Circular No. 122 of 2006-2007 and seeks to quash the same so far

as Category under process A is concerned and to direct the respondents to adopt the system of conducting written test and fixation of ratio of 1:2

for selecting them to be promoted as Official Cadre Junior Management Cadre Scale I from Clerical Cadre in respect of category under Process

A as followed in the settlement dated 28.7.1986 entered into between the respondent and the Union.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the dispensation of the written test for Process A is totally illegal, since it had

resulted in abuse in the procedure for selection. He further submitted that when the cadre to which the promotion is to be made and the source

from which the promotion is taken remained the same, the recruitment process should also be identical. He further submitted that the method of

evaluation of candidates fit for promotion by interview alone and by dispensing with the written examination solely by raising the years of

experience to 18 is not an intelligible, rational method of evaluation. He submitted that there is no rationality to support this dispensing with of the

written examination in Process A; consequently, unless and until there is a basis and an intelligible differentia to rest the same in contra distinction to

Process B and the object sought to be achieved by such a differential method of evaluation, the entire process is arbitrary and hence, liable to be

struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the recruitment by Process A cannot be said to be a

fair and rational method. Pointing out to the weightage given in Process A and in Process B as to the seniority of the candidates, he submitted that

when both the processes recognise service and seniority as factors in evaluation, the two different methods of evaluation, one by interview and the

other by written test, introduced an element of uncertainty and arbitrariness and a risk thrown out of preferences shown by the Selection

Committee in Process A. The classification between Process A and Process B is very thin, considering the fact that a person with 18 years of

service still has the choice to come and opt for either Process A or Process B. He relied on the decision reported in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of

India, to state that the narrowing down of the chances for similarly placed persons by the dual criteria strikes at the root of fairness in the matter of

evaluation; as such, any method which gives room for an abuse and introduces an element of arbitrariness among the selection of persons belonging

to the same cadre to the same post is violative of Article 14 and hence, subject to judicial review. He also submitted that unless the basis for such

differential treatment is shown, the criteria adopted cannot answer the test of Article 14. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision reported

in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, .

The respondent has filed its counter affidavit and pointed out that the petitioner, along with two others, had taken their chance under the

promotion policy during 2002, 2003 and 2005. The respondent had further stated that the petitioner and others filed W.P. Nos. 11628 to 11631

of 2005. The respondent had questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners have an effective remedy under

the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, having taken part in the promotion process, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same at this

distance of time. The respondent pointed out that the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union is representing 86% of the staff. Under the

promotion policy settled as per the settlement reached on 18.5.2001, the petitioner had taken his chance in the promotion process. It is further

stated that the settlement reached by the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union commands the support of the majority of the staff of the

bank. It denied the allegation that the persons selected for promotion belonged to the majority Union. It is further stated that the two sources of

selection for promotion was made keeping in mind the interests of the employees of the respondent. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was

offered promotion he having passed in the written test in 1985. However, he refused to accept the same. Under the subsequent settlement, he

sought promotion only through the seniority channel. The respondents further pointed out that promotion is not an automatic one. Considering the

settlement reached between the respondent and the employees realising the need for selecting the right persons to the higher cadre, given the

challenge that the employer has to face in the changing scenario, merit certainly has a role to play. As regards the change in the procedure brought

about in the settlement in 1986, the respondent stated that earlier to the settlement, an employee who had put in ten years of service was eligible

under the seniority channel. However, due to the demands raised by the senior employees who were stagnating without promotion, a consensus

was arrived at on 18.5.2001, increasing the eligibility criteria from 10 years to 18 years. The zone of consideration was increased from 1:2 to 1:4

so that the employees who had put in 18 years of service and above will have a chance. It is further stated that while the interview carried 50%

marks, the balance 50% was allocated for educational qualification, confidential report, service, entrustment of duties or special

assistant/stenographer. 40% of the vacancies alone was reserved for those coming through Process A and 60% allocation through Process B. The

respondent states that the marks in the interview were recorded with ink pen and not in pencil; as such, the question of manipulation does not arise.

He further stated that the qualifying service was increased to 18 years, considering the number of candidates with years of service and among the

employees having more than 18 years, persons found to be comparatively efficient are selected. The respondent defended this selection as one

based on the comparative merit of the candidates. Referring to the changes in the selection system from the earlier settlements right from 1978, the

respondent submitted that keeping in mind the career opportunities created by a competitive environment and to meet the challenges, and also the

huge number of senior employees, the respondent and the Union arrived at an agreement apportioning 40% of the vacancies on seniority channel

and 60% of the vacancies with regular procedure for written test. It is further stated that the respondent follows the reservation policy as stipulated

by the Government. As such, process A is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The settlement is binding on all the employees irrespective of their

affiliation to any Union. The respondents state that the challenge itself is the result of the petitioner not passing through the merit requirements, there

is no arbitrariness writ large on the selection mode by Process A. The respondent submits that in view of the private and foreign banks entering the

field and the diverse activities undertaken, interview plays an important role to identify the right personnel for further promotion. Given the length of

service, the mere absence of an academic qualification should not defeat the meritorious candidates being considered for appointment to the higher

post. In the circumstances, there is no arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the circular is the result of the settlement reached u/s 12(3)

of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, it is not possible to re-write a settlement arrived at u/s 12(3). Referring to the scope of Section 12(3)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, he submitted that a settlement is presumed to be a fair one until it is set aside by a competent authority having

jurisdiction. He pointed out that the settlement has been in vogue ever since 2001 and is proved to be a successful one; as such, it is not open to an

individual to challenge the same. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision reported in National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Others, and Herbertsons Limited Vs. The Workmen of Herbertsons Limited and Others, . He also questioned the locus standi of

the petitioner as an individual to question the settlement. He also placed on the decision reported in Anzar Ahmed Vs. State of Bihar and others, .

He submitted that by the attitude of this petitioner, the promotion of 200 persons had to be stayed and interview cancelled. After going through the

various Clauses of the Settlement, learned Counsel submitted that given the object of promotion by selection, no exception could be taken to the

selection by two modes, one for those with experience above 18 years and those less than 18 years. In the background of the settlement arrived

at, the petition is totally misconceived and hence, liable to be dismissed.

Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the issue is one of arbitrariness violating the protection

under Article 14 of the Constitution, that the mere fact of settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act does not permit the same to

be in violation of Article 14. He further submitted that promotional process is done year to year; as such, cause of action arises when promotion is

considered every year. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that 880 employees were issued with call letters to appear for interview.

Two questions arise for consideration, one as to the binding nature of the settlement reached u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the

other as to the question of arbitrariness in the Settlement reached, introducing an element of irrationality and unreasonableness, offending Article 14

of the Constitution of India. On the question of binding character of the settlement reached and the right of an individual to question the same either

in his representative capacity as one belonging to a minority Union not governed under the settlement proceedings or in his individual capacity, we

have already noted the law declared by the Supreme Court in the various decisions rendered in every aspect of the arguments projected by the

learned Counsel for the petitioner.

In the background of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the respondent rightly questioned the locus standi of the petitioner herein as an

individual claiming to belong to a minority Union not part of the settlement to question the settlement reached. When we look at the facts herein, it

may be noted that a settlement was originally reached on 22.3.1978. A perusal of the settlement dated 22.3.1978 shows that the settlement itself

was reached between the employer and All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act in the matter of

promotion of employees in the Clerical and Subordinate Cadre of the bank. Again, on 28.7.1986, a settlement was reached in an industrial dispute

between the Management and the workmen represented by the All India Overseas Bank Employees'' Union in the matter of promotion from the

Clerical Cadre to the Officer Cadre Junior Management Scale I. In respect of process A under the above settlement, written test was considered

both for process A as well as for Process B. The requirement as to the years of service or criteria for Process A was maintained as it is. In the

case of process B, a written test was contemplated in respect of those prescribed eligibility requirement of less than ten years. The settlement

arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 18.5.2001 between the Management and the workmen is now under challenge in W.P. No.

11631 of 2005 in the matter of promotion from Clerical Cadre to Officer Cadre Junior Management Scale I. The short recital as part of the

Memorandum of Settlement shows that with a view to meet the challenges in the changing banking scenario and to fulfil the aspirations of

employees by providing adequate and planned fast track career opportunities, the existing policy was modified so as to achieve the object of

quality human resources. The Memorandum of settlement provide for promotion by two processes, namely, by Process A and Process B. Process

A was concerned about employees having completed 18 years of active service in Clerical Cadre. In the case of Process B, employees in Clerical

Cadre not falling under Process A are considered for promotion. The difference between Process A and Process B is that while in the former there

is a selection only by interview, in the latter, there is a written test in the place of interview. The marks are allotted under four categories for service,

educational qualifications and other weightage for rural service etc. While in the case of Process A service is given greater weightage, in the case of

Process B, educational qualification is given a greater weightage by allotting 65 marks as against 50 for service in Process A which really show that

contrary to the assertion of the petitioner, service is given greater weightage and that interview alone does not, in any manner, tilt the scales of

fairness to the disadvantage of the petitioner. In fact, it is the other way about. Considering the object of giving greater weightage to the service put

in and the demands of these persons with comparatively lesser qualification and greater service, the claim of the petitioner does not merit

acceptance.

It is an admitted fact that a candidate having completed 18 years of service, instead of opting for process A, can yet go for selection under

process B. The choice is entirely left to the concerned individual. In the face of this option, the petitioner herein went in for process B. Having thus

opted for process B, the contention that process A interview has an element of arbitrariness and uncertainty over process B in view of the selection

purely by interview as against the written test, cannot be accepted, quite apart from the reason that the selection to the post by the processes is

agreed to under a settlement reached in terms of Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and this Court does not sit as an appellate Court to

dissect the settlement to go for a pathological analysis. Given the nature of settlement and the purport and importance of the settlement reached u/s

12(3), I reject this plea of the petitioner. Even on merits of the submission, I do not find any justification that there is an element of uncertainty and

arbitrariness solely by reason of the petitioner not succeeding in the selection process.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that unless and until the reasonableness of this method through process A is

established, the same cannot be upheld by any norms. In this connection, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court

reported in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, and submitted that the classification is irrational, given the fact that

the selection is going to be from the same cadre to the another similar cadre. He laid particular emphasis on the fact that there is likelihood of an

abuse and the classification lacks intelligible differentia with a nexus shown to the object.

The decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, sums up the principles on

which the challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution can rest. The scope and content of Article 14 has been discussed in innumerable decisions

of Apex Court. The essence of Article 14 is that it forbids discrimination and inequality in treatment of men and matters. Dealing with the scope of

Article 14, in the decision reported in Gauri Shanker and others Vs. Union of India and others, , the Supreme Court held that ""it is settled law that

in giving effect to the salutary principle, a mathematical precision is not envisaged and there should be no fanatical or doctrinaire or wooden

approach to the matter. A practical and realistic approach should be adopted."" The Supreme Court also referred to the decision reported in Ram

Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others, and held that the classification has to be founded on different bases, namely,

geographical, or according to the objects or occupations or the like, and what is necessary is that there should be a nexus between the basis of

classification and the object of the Act under consideration. The Supreme Court, in the said case, held that in determining the vaildity, the Court

has to examine whether the classification must be found on an intelligible diferentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together

from others left out of the group and that the said differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute.

While dealing with the contention of the petitioner that the settlement has to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14, it must not be forgotten

that we are concerned about the settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While there cannot be any two opinion that in

matters of promotion by selection, there could be no room for an arbitrary exercise, yet, at the same time, it must be remembered that the terms of

the settlement are not to be tested strictly by the standards of Article 14 as are normally applied while reviewing either an executive order or

legislative provision; lest, both the significance of a Settlement u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the relevancy of Article 14 would

lose its identity and relevancy as recognised in their respective fields and as recognised in the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various

decisions.

If a legislative provision or an executive order of general application does not become unconstitutional merely because in the actual application

it turns out to be disadvantageous or inequitable to certain individuals, no grievance of whatsoever nature couldbe raised on grounds of

disadvantage or inequity in a matter relating to a settlement reached by a conciliation process under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. A term of settlement does not become bad or obnoxious to Article 14 merely by reason of the fact that the criteria of one process is not

extended or followed under another process. In a matter concerning the Settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the

endeavour before the Court is not to review the merits of the decision or even the decision making process unless there are serious allegations as

regards the lack of bona fides or corrupt practices entering into the Settlement. In the absence of any material or allegation attributing oblique

motive based on concrete materials, a settlement reached should be prima facie presumed to be in the interests of the employees. It must be

remembered that this Court is not a Court of appeal to get into the merits of the settlement arrived at u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, to sit as a Super Conciliation Officer to substitute its judgment by indulging in an examination of the clauses of settlement. The petitioner''s

challenge is as regards only one portion of the settlement, which challenge, as per the law declared by the Supreme Court, is totally unsustainable.

As already seen, the relevancy of Article 14, hence, cannot be stretched out of proportion to examine the reasonableness of a settlement arrived at

u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In any event, this process of selection agreed to in the settlement out of the anxiety to satisfy the

demands of a huge backlog of employees in the Clerical Cadre, who, by the years of service put in, but not backed up by the educational criteria,

need to be considered as a class by themselves. Hence, the question of testing the settlement reached u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on

the touchstone of Article 14 appears to be rather irrational. The exigencies of the parties agreeing on the terms of settlement needs to be

understood in the background of facts leading to the settlement.

Considering all the aspects, I am unable to see any ground for granting the prayer. Given the binding nature of the settlement reached u/s 12(3)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the absence of any substantiated allegation of corrupt practices or mala fides writ large in the matter of

settlement, the request for testing the settlement on the principles governing Article 14, is totally misconceived. In any event, be it on grounds of

facts or on principles of law, I do not find any merit to grant the relief as prayed for. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. There will, however, be

no order as to costs. Connected M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2007 are closed.