State Bank of India vs M. Raja

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.07.2007 made in W.P. No.

7999 of 2005, by which, the learned Judge, while setting aside the order of the appellant dated 7.7.2005, heard the respondent herein, who was

permitted to be represented by one Mr. Rajarathinam as Defence Assistant in the Disciplinary Proceedings though he belonged to an Officer

cadre.

The sum and substance of the challenge of the appellant in this appeal is that Clause 12(a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002

though entitles a delinquent employee to be represented by a representative of a registered Trade Union of Bank Employees, of which the

delinquent is a member, having regard to the settled practice and taking note of the intention of the parties, such representation in the disciplinary

proceedings can only be permitted for an employee of the Trade Union in which the delinquent is a member and not a person, who is in the cadre

of an officer.

Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would further contend that in any event, such a controversy cannot be

raised by the respondent in the Writ Petition, but, permitted to be made by invoking Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, where the

intention of the parties could have been examined at length.

We heard the learned senior Counsel for the appellant and after perusing the relevant records in particular, the settlement dated 10.4.2002 as

well as the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. The clause in

the settlement dated 10.4.2002 which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under:

12(a)(1)(x) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the

commencement of the enquiry.

A reading of the above clause explicitly shows that what all required for a representative, to assist a delinquent employee, is that he should also

be a member of the registered trade union of bank employees in which the delinquent is a member on that date, notified for the commencement of

the enquiry. Therefore, if such prescriptions are satisfied, it is immaterial, whether such representative is in the cadre of an employee or an officer.

Therefore, when the clause is so patent in its contents and expressions, we are of the considered view that the same does not require any detailed

exercise to be made by driving the parties to invoke Section 36A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A reading of the said clause can be

understood without any ambiguity. The delinquent employee need not therefore be driven to undergo the ordeal exercise u/s 36A of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The further fact that the very same officer who has come forward to act as a defence representative of the respondent herein, was

stated to have been permitted to act as such in respect of the very same employee on an earlier occasion.

Having regard to all the above factors, the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the appellant dated 7.7.2005 and

directing the appellant to permit the respondent herein to avail the assistance of one Thiru Rajarathinam as his defence Assistant is perfectly justified

and we do not find any good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge on the appellant. The writ appeal therefore fails

and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.