Judgment:
1. Petitioner, Trade Union, aggrieved by the orders dated 11-6-2009, Annexure-N and 16-6-2010; Annexure-P of the Ministry of Labour, Union of India, has presented this petition.
2. Petitioner espoused the cause of Special Assistants in the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India, by filing a petition dated 4-7-2007, Annexure-M, alleging existence of an industrial dispute in the matter of entrustment of additional duties in branches where the position of Deputy Head Cashier (Special Assistants), is available, as recorded in the letter dated 24-4-2007, Annexure-G, more appropriately enabling the Cashier/Officer to delegate to the Special Assistants, work in excess of the duties of Special/Senior Assistants, as set out in the enclosure to the letter dated 5-8-2005, Annexure-F. According to the petitioner, the dispute was one of violation of Section 25-T and Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That petition was opposed by filing a reply statement of the 2nd respondent-State Bank of India, inter alia contending that there was no additional entrustment of duties and that the office order is issued to make working arrangement more in the nature of administration, and hence does not amount to an industrial dispute under Section 25-T and Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. The conciliation officer is said to have submitted a failure report, following which, the Ministry of Labour, by the correspondences Annexures-N and P impugned, held thus:
“Annexure-N: The Union has failed to establish violation of provisions of I.D. Act and bilateral understanding, hence, the dispute is premature at this stage.
Annexure-P: The instructions issued by the management vide letters dated 18-4-2007 and 24-4-2007 relates to disposal of their day-to-day functions and as such, these are the policy and administrative matters of the management. Hence, the matter raised cannot be construed as an industrial dispute”.
3. In the premise of the aforesaid reasoning, the Union Government felt that there was no prima facie case to consider the reference of a dispute for adjudication.
4. Before proceeding to consider the merit of the rejection of petitioner’s claim to refer an alleged industrial dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, it would be useful to extract the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another v State of Bihar and Others 1 AIR 1989 SC 1565 (1989) 3 SCC 271: 1989 SCC (L and S) 465: 1989-II LLJ 558 (SC):
“13. Attractive though the contention is, we regret, we are unable to accept the same. It is now well-settled that, while exercising power under Section 10(1) of the Act, the function of the appropriate Government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function, and that in performing this administrative function the Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of the lis, which would certainly be in excess of the power conferred on it by Section 10 of the Act. See Ram Avtar Sharma v State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 915 : (1985) 3 SCR 686, M.P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 860: (1985) 2 SCR 1019; Shambu Nath Goyal v Bank of Baroda, Jullundur, AIR 1978 SC 1088 : (1978) 2 SCR 793”.
5. Applying the aforesaid well-settled principal of law in the matter of exercising jurisdiction under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act, the Government performs administrative function and not judicial or quasi-judicial functions and therefore it cannot delve into the merits of the disputes and take upon itself the determination of the lis, in which event it would be in excess of jurisdiction conferred on it under Section 10 of the Act.
6. A bare perusal of Annexures-N and P discloses that the Government came to a conclusion that the dispute brought before the conciliation officer was in the nature of policy and administrative matters of the management and hence not an industrial dispute. I am afraid, in the factual matrix, the Government did not exercise administrative jurisdiction but a quasi-judicial jurisdiction in exercise of Section 10 to construe the dispute as not an industrial dispute and reject the claim of the petitioner. The question as to whether the assignment of duties by letter dated 24-4-2007, Annexure-G, in relation to currency chest i.e., cash belonging to RBI is, in fact, in excess of the duties and responsibilities of Special Assistants, as recorded in paragraph 7(a) to (c) to the enclosure to the letter dated 5-8-2005, Annexure-F is an industrial dispute or apprehends its existence required to be considered by the Central Government and having not done so, the orders impugned are unsustainable in law.
7. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed in part. The communications dated 11-6-2009 – Annexure-N and 16-6-2010 – Annexure P of the Union Government, are quashed and the proceeding remitted for consideration afresh and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observation of the Apex Court in Telco’s case, extracted supra, in any event, within a period of 6 weeks.