Syndicate Bank Vs. K Umesh Nayak Case Brief
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 13/09/1994
Bench: P.B. Sawant, Kuldip Singh, S. Mohan, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh
Citation: AIR 1995 SC 319
FACTS OF THE CASE : Syndicate Bank Vs. K Umesh Nayak
On April 10, 1989, the Indian Bank Association and the All India Bank Employees Unions signed a memorandum of settlement that was binding on both Syndicate Bank and the union. On June 9, 1989, both sides reached three settlements under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in which employees were entitled to certain benefits. However, Syndicate Bank did not execute these settlements, alleging the necessity for government permission before implementation.
Despite repeated pleas from the employee federation for speedy implementation, the bank stated that it was still awaiting permission. On July 24, 1989, the federation threatened to strike if the agreement was not executed. After getting the same reaction from the bank, the federation issued a strike warning on September 18, 1989. During the mediation proceedings, the federation filed a writ case in the High Court seeking urgent execution of the settlements. The High Court ruled in favor of the employees.
On October 12, 1989, Syndicate Bank published a circular indicating that workers who went on strike would have their earnings reduced. Despite the warning, the federation carried out the strike. The federation then filed a writ petition to overturn the bank’s circular, setting off a series of court actions. A single High Court bench found in favor of the bank, but the division bench eventually reversed the verdict. Due to inconsistent decisions, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the strike by the employee federation was legal or illegal under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
Whether the division bench’s decision in favor of the employees should be set aside?
ARUGEMENT
Appellant – The bank claimed that under Section 22(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, employees are forbidden from going on strike during conciliation hearings and for seven days afterward. Therefore, the strike was illegal. The bank further claimed that the argument over government approval was an industrial dispute, making Section 22(1)(d) applicable.
Respondent- The federation argued that government permission was not required to enforce the settlement because there was no such provision in the agreement. They maintained that there was no industrial dispute, hence the mediation processes was illegal and Section 22(1)(d) did not apply to the strike.
OBSERVED BY THE COURT
The Supreme Court reviewed and addressed conflicting rulings from previous decisions. It stated that a strike is prohibited under the Industrial Disputes Act if it breaches its requirements, notably during conciliation processes or within seven days of their conclusion. The court stated that disagreements should be resolved by the competent authorities as outlined in the Industrial Dispute Act.
The court determined that the High Court lacked jurisdiction in this case, and that the appropriate forum for addressing pay issues and strike legality was the applicable adjudicating authority under the Industrial issues Act.
HELD BY THE COURT : Syndicate Bank Vs. K Umesh Nayak
The Supreme Court overturned the division bench’s decision, finding that the case should be decided by the relevant authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act. It asked the Central Government to refer the wage deduction issue to the appropriate body within eight weeks. The court underlined that the legitimacy of a strike, as well as any salary entitlements during such a strike, must be proven under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
One thought on “Syndicate Bank Vs. K. Umesh Nayak”