http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIAN STAFF ASSOCIATIONAND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF INDIAN AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/04/1996

BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) BENCH: FAIZAN UDDIN (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1685            1996 SCC  (4) 378  JT 1996 (4)   100        1996 SCALE  (3)249

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                WRIT PETITION NO. 713 OF 1995 State Bank of India Staff Association and another V. State Bank of Indian and others                       J U D G M E N T FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1.   The parties  in the aforementioned Civil Appeal and the Writ Petition  are the same with the distinction that in the Civil Appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated July 17,  1995 passed  by a  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court,  Bench Lucknow, dismissing the Writ Petition no. 1662 (M/B)  of 1995,  filed by  the appellants on the ground that the  same was  not maintainable  as  the  earlier  Writ Petition no.  400 (S/B)  of 1995  was dismissed as withdrawn without permission  to file  a fresh  petition for  the same relief. While  the Writ  Petition under  Article 32  of  the Constitution of  Indian pertains  to the relief for quashing of the letter dated May 3, 1995 issued by the respondents to the General  Secretary of the SBI Staff Association, Lucknow Circle and  also for  a  writ  of  mandamus  commanding  the respondents  not  to  interfere  with  the  affairs  of  the petitioner   Association   and   to   negotiate   with   the appellant/petitioner No. 2 Mr. M.R. Awasthy who Claims to be the  General   Secretary  of   the  State  Association.  The appellants and  the petitioners  being the  same, they shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellants. 2.   The facts  in brief  as they  emerge from  the memo  of appeal and  the writ  petition are  that the  State Bank  of India, respondent  No. 1  is  divided  into  13  local  Head Offices including  one at  Lucknow. These  Head Offices  are called Circles  of the  respondent Bank.  In all the circles there is  a Circle  Management consisting  of Chief  General Manager and  General Managers.  The appellant  No. 1  -  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

State Bank  of India Staff Association (hereinafter referred to as  the Staff  Association’) is  an affiliate  of the All India State  Bank of  India  Staff  Federation  (hereinafter referred to  as the  Staff Federation’),  a registered Trade Union.  under   The  Trade  Unions  Act.  1926  (hereinafter referred to  as the ’Act’). The Staff Association represents the workmen  / employees of Lucknow Circle. According to the appellants, there  is an  Office of the Staff Association in each circle  as well  as in  each branch  of respondent Bank throughout the country. The Staff Association represents the workmen /  employees of  the respective  circles through its lawfully elected  Office  bearers  in  accordance  with  the Constitution and  Bye-laws of the Staff Association , having a right  to negotiate  to industrial  matters as  the Circle Associations and  their duly  elected members are recognized by the  respondents. Further  case of the appellants is that according to  the Code,  the  Joint  Consultative  Committee comprising the  Management and  the representatives  of  the Staff Association  is constituted at two levels, namely, (1) at the  Central Level  with respondent No. 1 and (2) in each local   Head Office of the Circle of respondent No. 1, which are called  as a  Central Consultative  Committee and Circle Consultative Committee of the Bank respectively. The Central Consultative Committee  is  represented  through  the  Staff Federation  and   the  Circle   Consultative  Committee   is represented though the Circle Staff Association. 3.   Further case  of the  petitioners is that in the Circle General Body Meeting of the Staff Association held at Lajpat Bhawan, Kanpur  on October  16, 1994 M.R. Avasthi, appellant No.  2  was  elected  as  General  Secretary  of  the  Staff Association for  a period of three years, in accordance with the bye-laws  and Constitution of the Staff Association. The said election  of appellant  No. 2  as General Secretary was further confirmed by the Central Committee held at Vrindaban on November  19, 1994,  by reason of which M.R. Awasthi, the appellant No.  2 has  a legitimate  right to  represent  the Staff Association,  appellant No. 1 and about 16,000 workmen / employees of the Circle Management. But the respondent No. 3, the  Assistant General  Manager (Personnel)  of the State Bank of  India, Lucknow  by his impugned letter dated May 3, 1995, communicated  to the  General Secretary, the appellant No. 2  herein, that  in view of the advise received from the Central Office, the Management shall not negotiate with Shri M.R. Awasthi.  appellant No.  2 on any matter of the Union / Association as  Shri M.R.  Avasthi had  already retired from the Bank  on January  31,  1995.  It  is  the  legality  and propriety of this letter which is under challenge herein. 4.   The respondents  have  resisted  the  appeal  and  Writ petition  by  contending  that  according  to  the  practice followed by  the Bank  since decades only a serving employee may represent  the Union  in bilateral  discussions with the Bank which  practice is  recognized by  the Staff Federation also. They  have taken the stand that on account of the fact that Bank  being a  credit institution  cannot deal  with  a person who  is not  regard to be bound by the declaration of secrecy and  fidelity by  which other  serving employees are bound and  also because  the Act no where lays down that the employer are bound to have negotiations with the Trade Union nor the  members of  such Unions are entitled to insist upon their presence  in  negotiations  with  the  Employers.  The respondents have taken the plea that though outsiders may be admitted as  members of  the Trade  Unions  and  its  office bearers, but  the Act does not restrict the Employer s right or option  to have  negotiation only with such of the Office bearers  who  are  its  serving  employees  specially  in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

commercial concern  like Banking  Industry. The  respondents have stated  that the Code of Discipline, relied upon by the appellants does not entitle such office bearers to claim any right of  representation and  negotiation with the Bank. The respondents have  taken further  stand  that  M.R.  Avasthi, appellant No.  2 having retired from the service of the Bank on January  31, 1995  has no  right to  negotiate  with  the Management on  behalf of  the Union  / Staff Association and the Management  is within its right and authority to decline to negotiate with him. 5.  The  application  filed  by  the  Staff  Federation  for intervention has  been allowed by us to The Staff Federation has taken  the same stand as is taken by the respondents and have supported  the respondents  in toto,  it is  stated  on behalf of  the Staff  Federation  that  it  is  the  central organization of the employees of the State Bank of India and circle     level  Unions/Associations  including  the  First Petitioner who  are affiliated with it, the aims and objects of which are laid down in its Rules and the Constitution. It deals with all policy matters and the decisions of the Staff Federation is  absolutely binding on all the affiliates. The Staff Federation  has emphatically  stated that the accepted policy followed  since decades  is that  none but  a serving employee   has    to   represent    Federation   or   Circle Union/Association at  all levels  in bilateral  forums.  The Staff Federation has pressed into service past instances for such policy.  It is  stated that in 1991 when one Mr Charles Coutto, the  then General  Secretary of  Bombay Circle Union had ceased  to be  an employee, and claimed to represent the Bombay Circle Union in bilateral forums, it was M.R. Awasthi , the  appellant No.  2 who  was then  the President  of the Federation  as  well  as  the  General  Secretary  of  Staff Association  Lucknow,   who  full   endorsed  the  aforesaid practice of  representation by  a serving employee only. The Federation, therefore,  rejected claim  of Charles Coutto in view of  the decision as contained in letter dated April 26, 1991 (Annexure-B)  to which  M.R. Awasthi  was a  party. the said policy  was formalized  by Federation  by amending  its Rules in Council Meeting held on December 23. 1994 under the chairmanship of M.R. Awasthi, appellant No. 2. 6.   Having regard  to the present circumstances of the case and with  a view  to  forge  efficiency  in  Public  Utility Services like Bank and with a view to prevent and remove the employer and  the workmen  in day  to  day  working  of  the establishment and to promote measures for securing amity and good relations  between them. We proposed the parties it the Barto also go into the legality of the election of appellant No. 2. M.R. Avasthi as General Secretary and his continuance as such  even after  his retirement  from service on January 31. 1995  and the  parties were  required to  address on the same besides the legality / propriety of the impugned letter dated May 3, 1995 issued by the respondent No. 3 refusing to negotiate  with   appellant  No.  2  -  M.R.  Awasthi  -  as representative   of   the   Union   /   Staff   Association. Consequently, the  parties addressed us on the same and have also submitted written submissions. 7.   Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently urged that even though appellant No. 2, M.R. Awasthi retired from the  service of the respondent Bank on January 31. 1995 on attaining  the age  of superannuation  yet he is entitled the age  of superannuation yet he is entitled to continue as General Secretary of the Staff Association and represent the Union and  its members  in the  negotiations to be held with the  Management.   He  submitted   that  by  virtue  of  the provisions contained  in Section  6 (e)  read with  the with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

which the  Trade Union is so connected, are also entitled to be admitted  as ordinary  or temporary  members of the Trade Union  and,   therefore,  the  respondents  cannot  deny  to negotiate with  M.R. Awasthi,  the General  Secretary of the Staff Association even after this retirement from service of the Bank.  He also  urged that the scheme contemplated under Section 6  (e) and Section 22 of the Act is identical to the one as  contemplated in  Section 36  (i) of  the  Industrial Disputes Act,  1947 under which a member of the executive or office bearer  of a  registered Trade  Union who  is not  an employee of  the industry  is also entitled to represent the workman and on that basis it was contended that the impugned letter of  May 3,  1995 declining  to  negotiate  with  M.R. Awasthi, the  General  Secretary  of  the  Union  is  wholly illegal and  void. This  contention is  seriously opposed by the respondents as well as by the Staff Federation. In order to appreciate  the rival contentions it would be appropriate to look to the relevant provisions of the Trade Unions Act. 8.   Section 6 with its clause (e) of the Act reads thus:-      6. Provisions  to be  contained  in      the rules  of  a  Trade  Union.-  A      Trade Union  shall not  be entitled      to  registration  under  this  Act,      unless  the  executive  thereof  is      constituted in  accordance with the      provisions  of  this  Act  and  the      rules  there  of  provide  for  the      following matters, namely-      (a) (b)  (c)  (d).....      (e)  the   admission  of   ordinary      members  who   shall   be   persons      actually engaged  or employed in an      industry with  which the  admission      of  the   number  of   honorary  or      temporary   member    as    (Office      bearers) required  under Section 22      to form  the executive of the Trade      Union.      (f),   (g),        (h),        (i),      (j)............      Relevant part  of Section  22 reads      as under:-      22.  Proportion of  officers to  be      connected with  the industry:-  Not      less than  one-half  of  the  total      number of  the (office  bearer)  of      every registered  Trade Union shall      be  persons   actually  engaged  or      employed in  an industry with which      the Trade Union is connected. It may  be noted  that Section  6 contemplates two essential requirements. Firstly, the executive of the Trade Union must be constituted  in accordance with the provisions of the Act and unless  it is  so constituted a Trade Union shall not be entitled to the registration under the Act and Secondly, the rules of  such a  Trade Union should provide for the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of Section 6. Clause (e) of Section 6  of the  Act provides for admission of honorary or temporary members  (office bearers)  also in accordance with Section 22 of the Act. that being so, the rules of the Trade Union according  to clause  (e) of  Section 6 should provide for the  admission of  ordinary members who shall be persons actually engaged  or employed in the industry with which the Trade Union  is  connected  and  also  to  provide  for  the admission of  number of  honorary or  temporary  members  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

office bearers  as required  by Section 22 of the Act with a view to  form the executive of the Trade Union. A reading of Section 22 reproduced above would show that it mandates that at least  one half  of the total number of office bearers of the Trade  Union  should  be  persons  actually  engaged  or employed in  a  industry  with  which  the  Trade  Union  is connected. That means the number of actually employed office bearers should  in no  case be  less than  half of the total number  of  office  bearers.  The  provisions  contained  in Section 6 and 22 reproduced above relate to the registration of a  Trade Union  and constitution  of the executive of the said Union.  The provisions  of Sections  6 and  22 indicate that an  ordinary or  a temporary  member may  be an  office bearer but  they no  where provide  that such a member shall also have  a right  to negotiate  with the management or the management would be under an obligation to negotiate with an office  bearer  of  the  Union  who  is  no  longer  in  the employment  of   the  Industry  which  the  Trade  Union  is connected. 9.   Now coming to the contention that the scheme of Section 6 read  with 22  of the Act is similar to that of Section 36 of the  Industrial Disputes  Act 1947  in terms  of which  a workman is  entitled to  be represented  in any  proceedings under the Act by any member of the executive or other office bearers of  a registered  Trade Union , even though he is no longer in  the employment of the Industry, it may be pointed but Section  3 is  a complete  answer to this submission. It may be  seen that  Section 3  of the Industrial Disputes Act provides for  the constitution of Works Committee consisting of the  representatives of the employers and workman engaged in the  establishment. It  is significant  to note  that  it clearly provides  that the  representatives of  workman  the workman engaged  in the  establishment and  in  consultation with the  Trade Union  if any,  registered under  the Indian Trade Unions  Act. 1926.  under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Works Committee so constituted is enjoined with the duty to promote  measure for  securing and  preserving amity  and good relations between the employer and workman and, to that end, to comment upon the matters of their common interest or concern and  endeavor to  compose any material difference of opinion in  respect of  such matters. It, therefore, becomes clear  that   under  the   Industrial   Disputes   Act   the representatives of  the workman  have to be chosen only from amongst the workmen already engaged in the establishment and not an  outsider  or  an  ex-workman  of  the  establishment concerned or  any other  person. It would, therefore, not be correct to  contend that  having regard to the provisions of Section 36  read with  Section 3  of the Industrial Disputes Act an  honorary/temporary member of a private individual is entitled to  represent the workman in the matters aforesaid. While referring  to the  provisions of  Section  36  of  the Industrial Disputes  Act, the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act  can not be over- looked or ignored. The provisions of the  Trade Union Act, 1926 have to be harmonized with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also to be kept in view that the industrial Disputes Act is  a   much  later   Act,  which   besides  other  matters, specifically concentrates  on harmonious  relations  between the employer  and workmen,  the disputes between the two and settlement thereof  by negotiations  with the  assistance of their  respective  representatives.  It  is  for  all  these reasons and  as stated  in their  counter-affidavit  by  the respondents, that  a practice  and usage  is followed by the respondent-Bank since decades whereby only serving employees represent the  Union in  bilateral discussions with the Bank

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

and that  this practice  has been  recognized by  the  Staff Federation also which is a body to coordinate the activities of various Unions/Associations of the employees of the State Bank of  India and  its associate  Banks. This  stand of the respondents has been fully supported by the Staff Federation - intervener. 10.  Here it would be advantageous to look into the relevant rules and  constitution of  the State  Bank of  India  Staff Association. Rules (5), (6) and (9) relate to the membership of the  Union while  Rule (14) relates to the Management and Officers of  the Union the relevant parts of said rules read as under:-      5. None but a permanent employee of      the State  Bank of India who is not      below  the   age  of  18  shall  be      enrolled as  ordinary member of the      Association  provided,  however,  a      member   employee    promoted    to      Supervisory  Cadre  shall  have  to      apply for  retaining his membership      in the usual manner.      6. Honorary Member- Persons who are      not eligible  as members under rule      5 but  are  in  sympathy  with  the      objects and  spirits of  the  Union      may be  elected Honorary Members at      the Triennial or Special Meeting of      the     General     Council/Central      Committee/Central           Working      Committee convened for the purpose.      Besides, considering  the cases  of      Honorary Membership  directly,  the      General             Council/Central      Committee/Central           Working      Committee shall  consider  all  the      individual cases as proposed by the      Circle representatives.      9. Ordinary member after retirement      from the  Bank s  service shall not      continue to be such members.      (a) None  but an  Ordinary/Honorary      Member of  the Association  will be      eligible to  occupy or  continue in      any    post    in    the    Central      Committee/Central           Working      Committee/Circle     Committee/Unit      Committee. Notwithstanding anything      contains elsewhere  in these rules,      a    member    of    the    Central      Committee/Central           working      Committee/Circle     Committee/Unit      Committee will  forthwith cease  to      be such  member if  he ceases to be      an Ordinary/Honorary Member.      14. The  management  of  the  Union      shall  be  vested  in  the  Central      Committee which consists of:-      (a) (1),  (ii), (iii),  (iv),  (v),      (vi), (vii),  (viii)...............      (ix) One  General Secretary elected      by the  Circle General  Council for      each administrative  Circle of  the      State  Bank   of  India  who  shall      belong to  any Branch/Office of the      Bank of  the Circle for which he is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    elected   and   one   Dy.   General      Secretary  elected  by  the  Circle      General  Council   for  each  Zonal      Office of the State Bank of India.      (x) etc..................... A cursory  look to  rule 5 Will make it clear that to become an ordinary  member of  the Association  one  has  to  be  a permanent employee  of the  State Bank  of India  and at the same time  not below  the age  of 18  years whereas  Rule  6 provides that  a person  who is  not a permanent employee of the Bank  as contemplated under Rule 5 but has some sympathy with the  objects and spirits of the Union he may be elected honorary member  at the  triennial or special meeting of the General Council etc.......convened for the purpose. Further, according to  Rule 9  ordinary members after retirement from the Bank  s service  shall act  continue to  be such members while   clause    (a)   of   Rule   9   provides   that   an ordinary/honorary member of the Association will be eligible to  occupy   or  continue   in  any   post  in  the  Central Committee/Central  Working  Committee/Circle  Committee/Unit Committee but such ordinary/honorary member of the aforesaid committees will  forthwith cease  to be  such member  if  he ceases to  be an  ordinary/honorary member,  notwithstanding contained to the contrary in the Rules. 11. It may be noticed that M.R. Awasthy, appellant No. 2 was an ordinary  member of  the  Staff  association  within  the meaning of Rule 5 of the Staff Association Rules. Being such ordinary member  he was  elected as General Secretary of the Staff Association  in the  triennial meeting held on October 16, 1994.  Admittedly. M.R. Awasthi retired from the service of the respondent-Bank on January 31, 1995 on attaininng the age of  superannuation. He was not elected as an honorary or a temporary  member in  any Special  Meeting of  the General Council or  of the Committees referred to above convened for that purpose any time after his retirement. Consequently, in view  of   Rule  9  M.R.  Awasthi  appellant  No.  2  cannot legitimately claim his continuance as an ordinary member and General Secretary of the Union after his retirement from the service of the Bank. Clause (a) of Rule 9 further reinforces this  position   which  contemplates   that  notwithstanding anything contained  elsewhere in  the Rules, a member of the Central    Committee/Central     Working    Committee/Circle Committee/Unit Committee  will forthwith  cease to  be  such member is he ceased to be an ordinary/honorary member. Since M.R.  Awasthi  ceased  to  be  an  ordinary  member  on  his retirement on  January 31. 1995 and since he was not elected as honorary  member at the triennial or a Special Meeting of the General  Council, etc.  as contemplated  in Rule  6,  he neither remained as ordinary member or as honorary member of the Association.  He therefore,  cannot  claim  a  right  to negotiate with  the management  as a  representative of  the Union. Even  otherwise he  cannot claim such a right in view of the  provisions contained  in clause  (ix) of Rule 14 (a) which provide  that the  General Secretary  elected  by  the Circle General Council for each administrative circle of the said Bank  should belong to any Branch/Office of the Bank of the Circle for which he is elected, M.R. Awasthi can be said to belong either to any Branch/Office of the Bank only if he is in the employment of the Bank. After the retirement he no longer belongs  to any  Branch/Office of  the  Bank  of  the Circle as he would be deemed to have ceased to belong to any Branch/Office of  the Bank. In these facts and circumstances no case  is made  out for  any interference  in the decision taken by  the respondents  and conveyed  to  the  appellants through the impugned letter dated May 3, 1995.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

12. It  may also  be appropriate  to  have  a  look  to  the relevant rules  of the  Federation. Clause  (d) of Rule 1 of the  said  Rules  provides  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the Federation shall extend to the whole of the territory of the Indian Union.  Rule 2  lays down the aims and objects of the Federation and  according to  clause (b)  thereof one of the aims and  objects is  to coordinate  the activities  of  the Union/Associations of  the employees  of the  State Bank  of India and  its associate  Banks within  the Indian Union and the Unions  outside Indian  Union and  to initiate  policies conductive to  the progress  and benefit  of the  affiliated unions/Associations. sub-clause  (v) of clause (e) of Rule 2 contemplates that  the decision of the Federation in matters of policy  shall be  absolute and  binding on all affiliated Union/Association/Administrative Circle shall have the right to send  any person  as delegate  to any General Body of the Federation who  is a  serving employee of the Further clause (g)  of  Rule  20  of  the  Federation  Rules  provides  for affiliation to only such Union/Associations of the employees of the State Bank of India and associate Banks which is run. managed and led by serving employees. Similarly Rule 21 lays down that  if any  of the  office-bearer or  member  of  the Federation,    council,     representing    an    affiliated Union/Association/Circle, ceases to be a serving employee of the Bank  or an  office-bearer, etc, shall be deemed to have become vacated.  Thus  from  the  aforementioned  federation Rules  it  is  distinctly  clear  that  the  policy  of  the Federation by  which the appellant No. 1 being its affiliate is also  bound permits  representation  only  by  a  serving employee of the Bank and not by a person who ceases to be an employee of the Bank. 13. The contention that by a resolution passed in the Circle General Council on October 16, 1994 M.R. Awasthi was elected as  an  honorary  member  of  the  Association  Rules  which resolution was  subsequently  affirmed  /  approved  in  the meeting of  the Central  Committee on November 19, 1994 does not hold good for two reasons. Firstly, no material has been placed on  record to show that there was ant such resolution as alleged  having been  approved  in  the  meeting  of  the Central Committee on November 19, 1994, whereby M.R. Avasthy is said  to be elected accepted as an honorary member of the Union after  his retirement. Secondly, even if it is assumed that there  was such a resolution the same was premature and in respect of a non-existing matter which was not obtainable either on  October 16,  1994 or  on November 19, 1994 as the question of M.R. Awasthi being an honorary member would have arisen  only  after  January  31,  1995  on  his  retirement provided he  was so  elected in  accordance with  Rule 6  of Staff Association Rules. 14.  Mr   Rajiv  Dhawan,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the intervener supported  by the  respondents counsel. Mr Harish Salve  and  other  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents submitted  that   the  triennial   election  of   the  Staff Association Lucknow  Circle had  taken place in 1989 and the next election had become due after 3 years term sometimes in 1992 and  according to  Rule 38  (a)  of  Staff  Association Rules, the  triennial meeting  of the General Council of the Association  should   be  held  within  9  months  from  the triennial term  unless precluded  by law.  It was  submitted that if  the meeting  is not  held within  9 months from the triennial term  it can  be so held only with the approval of Registrar of  Trade Unions  and since  the triennial meeting dated October  16, 1994 in which M.R. Awasthi was elected as General Secretary  was held  without such  approval  of  the Registrar, it was unauthorized and election was invalid. the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

relevant part of Rule 38 (a) reads thus:-      Triennial Meeting  of  the  General      Council-The  Triennial  Meeting  of      the   General    Council   of   the      Association shall  be held within 9      months  from   the  triennial  term      unless  precluded   by   law,   any      extension of  time beyond  9 months      will require  specific approval  of      the Registrar of Trade Unions. Further Rule  42 of  the Staff  Association Rules relates to the triennial  meeting of the Circle General Council for the purposes of  transacting the  business mentioned  in various clauses of the said rule. Clause (iii) of Rule 42 relates to election of  office bearers  of  the  Circle  Committee  and delegates  of   the  Triennial   General  Council   of   the Association. The relevant part of Rule 42 reads as under:-      42. Triennial Meeting of the Circle      General  Council-   The   Triennial      Meeting  of   the  Circle   General      Council  shall  be  held  within  6      months  from   the  close   of  the      Triennial term  unless precluded by      law, any extension of time beyond 6      months will require approval of the      Central  Committee/Central  Working      Committee of the Association. 15.  Admittedly,   the  triennial   election  of  the  Staff Association.  Lucknow   Circle  became   due  in  1992.  The triennial meeting  of the  Circle  was  however,  called  on October 16.  1994 in  which M.R. Awasthy, appellant No. 2 is saud to  have been  elected as General Secretary when he was in the  service of  the Bank.  Admittedly the said triennial meeting was  called much  after the  prescribed period  of 9 months as contained in Rule 32(a) and admittedly no approval of the Registrar of the Trade Union was obtained for calling the said  meeting on  October 16,  1994. The  said  meeting, therefore, cannot  be held to be valid meeting in respect of the matters transacted in the said meeting. As M.R. Awasthy, appellant No.  2 is  said to  have been  elected as  General Secretary in  the said  triennial meeting  of the Council it cannot be  said to be a valid election. Again as provided in Rule 42  of  the  Staff  Association  Rules,  the  triennial meeting of  the Circle General Council has to be held within 6 months  from close  of Triennial term, unless precluded by law and  extension of  time requires approval of the Central Committee for  election  of  office-bearers  of  the  Circle Committee, but no such approval of the Central Committee has been placed  on record.  The election  of appellant No. 2 as General Secretary  will be bad on this account also for this reason also,  therefore, the  petition as well as the appeal would fail. 16. It may be further noticed that some members of the Staff Association, Lucknow  Circle had filed a Writ Petition under Article 226  of the  Constitution of  India before  the High Court of  Allahabad which  was disposed of by an order dated December 5,  1994 with  a direction  to the Registrar of the Trade Unions,  West Bengal  to dispose of the representation of those  petitioners to  the said  writ petition  within  a period of  six weeks. Consequently the Registrar took up the matter  and   after  hearing  all  concerned  including  the appellants herein,  recorded the  finding that the triennial meeting held on October 16, 1994 was without obtaining prior approval of the Registrar in accordance with the said rules. Having gone  through the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

present case  and Rule  38 and  42 of  the Staff Association Rules we  are also  of the  view that  the triennial meeting held on  October 16,  1994 in  which M.R. Awasthy, appellant No. 2  was elected  as General  Secretary was  not  a  valid meeting. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above it is  not now  necessary for  us to  go into  the  question whether the  second writ  petition filed  by the  appellants before the High Court was maintainable or not. 17. For  the reasons  stated above, the appeal s well as the petition fail and are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.