Holding

A retired employee who ceases to be an ordinary or honorary member cannot continue as General Secretary nor have a right to negotiate, and the triennial meeting and election were invalid due to procedural non‑compliance.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a retired employee of the State Bank of India, who had been elected General Secretary of the SBI Staff Association before his retirement, could continue to represent the union and negotiate with management. The appellants argued that Sections 6(e) and 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Section 36(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permitted an honorary or temporary member to act as an office‑bearer even after retirement. The Court held that the statutes only allow ordinary or honorary members to be office‑bearers, but do not confer a right to negotiate if the person is no longer employed in the industry, and that representation must be chosen from current workmen under Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It further found that the triennial meeting on 16‑October‑1994, which elected the appellant as General Secretary, was invalid because it violated Rules 38(a) and 42 of the Staff Association Rules by not obtaining the Registrar’s or Central Committee’s approval. Consequently, the appellant ceased to be an ordinary or honorary member upon retirement and could not claim the right to negotiate. The appeal and the accompanying writ petition were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a retired employee who was an ordinary member and elected General Secretary can continue to represent the union and be obliged to be negotiated with under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the election of the General Secretary in the triennial meeting held on 16‑October‑1994 was valid in view of the procedural requirements of Rules 38(a) and 42 of the Staff Association Rules.
Whether the Staff Association Rules permit a retired employee to remain an ordinary or honorary member and hold office after retirement.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 3, s. 36(1)
Trade Unions Act, 1926s. 22, s. 6(e)

Subjects

Trade union lawRepresentation of workersRetired employeeNegotiation rightsUnion election validityStatutory interpretationIndustrial Disputes ActTrade Unions Act

Judgment

A STATE BANK OF INDIA STAFF ASSOCIATION
v.
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

APRIL 3, 1996

B IKULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]

Labour Law :

Trade Unions Act, 1926: Sections 6(e) and 22.
c Negotiation M-'it/z 111anagen1ent--Ordb1a1y or te1npora1y nte111ber ceased
to be in the employmellt of concemed indust1y-Held : Neither entitled to
negotiate with 111anagen1ent nor the n1anagen1e11t under an obligation to
negotiate with such n1en1ber-A.n honora.ry/tentporary ntenzber or a private
individual not entitled to represe/lt workmen under S.36(1) read with S.3 of
D the ID Act in respect of matters stated in S.3(2rFwther provisions of both
Acts have to be hannonised-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, Ss. 3 and 36(lr
Intepretation of Statutes.

State Bank of India Staff Association Rules Rules 5, 6, 9 and
14(a)(ix).
E
Membership-Discontinuation of-Ordinary member elected as
General Secreta1y and subsequently retired on superannuation-Thereafter
not elected as honorwy or temporary membC1-Status of-Held: Such a
person lost his status as ordina1y member as well as General Secretary--
Hence, cannot claini a 1ight to negotiate with 111anage111ent as a representative
F of the Association

Rules 5 and {r--{)rdinary member-Retired on superannuation-Sub-
sequently elected as lwnormy member on basis of resolution passed in Circle
General Council approved by Central Committee-Validity of-Held : No
1nate1ial has been placed on record to show that there was any such resolu-
G tio1t-Fu1the1~ the alleged resolution was in respect of a non-existing 1natter
as the person conce111ed retired subsequent to the date of approval--Hence,
election as honora1y nieniber invalid.

Rules 14(a)(ix) a11d 38---Genera!Counci/--T1ie1111ial meeting of-Such
meeting was called after expiry' of pC1iod presc1ibed i11 R.38(a) without
H obtaining approval of Registrar of Trade Unions-Validity of-Held : Not a
1104
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN. v. STATE BANK OF INDIA 1105

valid rneeting-HencC, election of General Secreta1y1 in that 111eeting also A
invalid.

Rules /4(a)(ix) and 42-Ceneral Counci/-T1iennial meeting of-Such
n1eeting i.vas convened beyond JJl'esc1ibed ti111e-tin1it under R.42 without ap-
proval of Central Committee-Validity of-Held : Not a valid meeting--
Hence, election of General Secreta1y in that n1eeting, vitiated. B

All-India State Bank of India Staff Federation Rules : Rules I (d), 2(b)
& (e)(iv), 8, 20(g) and 21-Affiliated association-Representation of-By an
ex-employel-He/d: Not pennissib/e Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 32
and 226.
c
Second wlit petition-Maintainability of-First Ji/lit petition disniissed
as withdrawn without pennission to file a ji"esh petition for the same
relief-Question left open.

Appellant No.2 was elected as the General Secretary of the Staff
Association in the Circle General Body Meeting of the Staff Association D
held on 16-10-1994 for a period of three years in accordance with the
byelaws and Constitution of the Staff Association. The said election of the
appellant No. 2 as General Secretary was further confirmed by the Central
Committee on 1-11-1994. Thus appellant No. 2 had a legitimate right to
represent the Staff Association, Appellant No. 1 and workmen employees E
of the Circle Management. In the meanwhile appellant No. 2 had retired
from the service of the respondent-Bank on 31-1-1975 on attaining the age
of superannuation. Thereupon the respondent-Bank refused to negotiate
with appellant No. 2 on any matter of the Union/Association since appellant
No. 2 had already retired from the service of the Bank.
F
Being aggrieved the appellants filed a writ petition before the High
Court challenging the aforesaid refusal of the respondent-Bank. The High
Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same was not
maintainable as the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn without
permission to file a fresh petition for the same relief'. Hence this appeal.
G
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that even though appel·
lant No. 2 had retired from the service of the respondent-Baqk on attaining
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 negotiation with the Management in terms of Section 6(e) read with H
>
\

1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 3 S.C.R.

A Section 22 of the Trade Union Act, 1926 and Section 36(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947; and that by a resolution passed in the Circle General
Council on 16-10-1994 appellant No. 2 was elected as an honorary member
of the Association within the meaning of Rule 6 of the Stall' Associati<in
Rules which resolution was subse<1uently allirmed/approved in the meeting
of the Central Committee on 19.11.1994.
B
On behalf of the respondents it was contended 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 recognised by the Staff Federation also; that though outsiders may be
c admitted as members of the Trade Unions and its office bearers, but the
Trade Union 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 commercial concern like Banking Industry, that
appellant No. 2 having retired from the service of the Bank on superannua-
tion had no right to negotiate with the Management, and that the triennial
D election of the StalT Association became due in 1992 whereas appellant No.
2 was elected as General Secretary in the triennial meeting held on 16-10-
1994 much after the prescribed period of 9 months as contained in Rule
38(a) without the prior approval of the Registrar of Trade Unions and,
therefore, the election of appellant No. 2 as General Secretary was un-
authorised and invalid.
E
Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The provisions of Sections 6(e) and 22 of the Trade
Unions Act, 1926, indicate that an ordinary or a temporary member may
F be an ollice bearer but they no where provide that sut.:h a n1en1ber shall also
have a right to negotiate \\ith the management or the management would
be under an obligation to negotiate with an oflice bearer of the Union who
.
is no longer in the employment of the Industry with which the Trade Union
is connected. [1114-B-C]

G 1.2. Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly stipulates
that the representatives of the workmen have to be chosen only from
amongst the \\orkmen 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
H the provisions of Section 36 read with Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes
STATE BANK OF INDIAASSN.v. STATE BANK OFINDIA 1107

Act an honorary/temporary member or a private individual is entitled ~o A
represent the \\'orkmen. \\'hile rel~rring to the provisions of Sect.ion 36 6r
the Industrial llisputes Act, the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act can
not be over-looked or ign41red. The provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1928
have to be harmonized \\.'ith the relevant provisions of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947. [IJ14·G·H, IJIS·A·B]
B
2.1. In the instant case 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 16·10·1994. Admitted·
ly, appellant No. 2 retired from the service of the respondent-Bank on C
31-1-1975 on attaining 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 Central Committee. Clause (a) of Rule 9 further reinfor-
ces the position which contemplates that notwithstanding anything con-
tained elsewhere in the Rules, a member of the Central Committee/Central
Working Committee/Circle Committee/Unit Committee will forthwith D
cease to be such member if he ceased to be an ordinary/honorary member.
Since appellant No. 2 ceased 'to be an ordinary member on his retirement
on 31.1.1995 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 E
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/Ollice of the Bank of the Circle for which he is elected. F
Mter the retirement appellant No. 2 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. (1117-A-G]

2.2. Moreover, Rules l(d), 2(b), & (e), (v), 8, 20(g) and 21 of the G
All-India State Bank of India Federation Rules distinctly indicate that the
policy of the Federation by which the appellant No. 1 being its alliliate is
also bound, permits representation only by a serving employee 01· the Bank
and not by a pers?n \'Vho ceases to be an employee of the Bank.
(1117-H; 1118-EJ H
~
I

1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996] 3 S.C.R.

A 3. The contention that by a resolution passed in the Circle (;eneral
Council on 16-10-1994 appellant No. 2 was elected as an honorary member
of the A.ssociation \Vithin the meaning of Rule 6 of the Stan· Association
Rules whh.:h resolution was subsequently atlirmed/approved in the nu~eting
of the Cent.ral Conunittee on 19-11-1994 does not hold good for t"'o reasons.
Firstly, no 111aterial has been placed on record to shon· that there \\'as any
B such resolution as alleged having been approved in the meeting of the
Central Committee on 19-11-1994, whereby appellant No. 2 is said to be
elected/accepted as an honorary n1en1ber of the Union after his retire1nent.
Secondly, even if it is assumed that there was such a resoliJtion the same was
perm a tu re and in reS]Ject of a non-existing matter which \\'as not obtainable

c either on 16-10-1994 on 19-11-1994 as the question of appellant No. 2 being
an honorary metnber \l'ould have arisen only after 31-1-1995 on his retire-
1nent provided he was so elected in acc~,rdance with Rule 6 of Stan· Ass1•cia-
tion Rules. [1118-F-H]

4. Admittedly, the triennial election of the Staff Association became
D due in 1992. The triennial meeting of the Circle was, however, called on
16-10-1994 in which appellant No. 2 is said to have been elected as General
Secretary when he was in the service of the Bank. Admittedly, the said trien·
nial 1neeting was called much after the prescribed period of 9 months as
contained in Rule 38(a) and admittedly no approval of the Registrar of
Trade Unions was obtained for calling the said meeting on 16-10-1994. The >-
E said meeting, therefore, cannot be held to be a valid meeting in respect of the
matters transacted in the said meeting. As appellant No. 2 is said to have
been elected as General Secretary in the said triennial meeting of the Coun-
cil it cannot be said to be a valid election.Again as provided in Rule42 of the
Staff Association Rules, the triennial n1eeting of the Circle General Council
has to be held \Vithin 6 n1onths fron1 close of triennial ter1n, unless precluded
F by law and extension of time rel}Uires approval of the Central Co1nmittee for
election of otlice-bearers of' the Circle Comtnittee, but no such approval of'
the Central Committee has been placed on record. TI1e 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 \l'ould fail.
G [1119-G-H; 1120-A-C]

5. The triennial meeting held on 16-10-1994,in which appellant No. 2
was elected, as General Secretary was not a valid meeting. In the facts and
t
circumstances of the case it is not necessary to go into the question whether
the second writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court was
H maintainable or not. [1120-E]
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN. v. STATE BANK OF INDIA !FAIZAN UDDIN.J.J 1109

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11259 of A
1995.

From lhe Judgment and Order dated 17.7.95 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 1662 (M/B) of 1995.

With B
Writ Petition No. 713 of 1995.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

Kapil Sibal and Pramod Swamp for the Appellants. c
H.N. Salve, Rajiv Dhawan, Sanjay Kapur, Rajiv Kapur, M.K. Michael
and Ranjan Mukherjee for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
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
.I.
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 E
Petition No. 400 (SIB) of 1995 was dismissed as withdrawn without permis-
sion to file a fresh petition for the same relief. While the Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 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 F
the affairs of the petitioner Association and lo negotiate with the appel-
lant/petitioner No. 2 Mr. M.R. Awasthy who claims to be the General
Secretary of the Staff Association. The appellants and the petitioners being
the same, they shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellants.
G
2. The facts in brief as they emerge from the memo of appeal and
the writ petition are that the State Bank of India, re.spondent 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. I - The State Bank of India Staff Association H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A (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 Constitu-
tion and Bye-laws of the 'Staff Association', having a right to negotiate to
industrial matters as the Circle Associations and their duly elected member
C are recognised by the respondents. F~rther case of the appeUants 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 Com-
D mittee of the Bank respectively. The Central Consultative Committee is
represented through the 'Staff Federation' and the Circle Consultative
Committee is represented through 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
E October 16, 1994 M.R. Awasthi, 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
F 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
G 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. Awasthi had already retired from the Bank on January 31,
1995. It is the legality and propriety of this letter which is under challenge
herein.

H 4. The respondents have resisted the appeal and writ petition by
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN. i:. STATE BANKOFINDIA(FAIZAN UDDIN,J.] 1111

contending that according to the practice followed by the Bank since A
decades only a serving employee may represent the Union in bilateral
discussions with the Bank which practice is recognised by the Staff Federa-
tion also. They have taken the stand that on account of the fact lhal Bank
being a credit institution cannot deal with a person who is not required to
be bound by the declaration of secrecy and fidelity by which other serving
employees arc bound and also because the Aci no where lays down that B
the employer are bound to have negotiations with the Trade Unions nor
the members of such Unions are entitled lo 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 bear,ers who are its
c
serving employees specially in a 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. Awasthi, appellant No. 2 having retired from the D
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 Manage-
ment 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 E
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 organisation
of the employees of the State Bank of India and circle level Union/Associa-
tions 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 absolute- F
ly 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 G
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 fully endorsed the aforesaid practice of repre-
sentation by a serving employee only. The Federation, therefore, rejected H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 formalised by Federation by amending its Rules in Council
Meeting held on December 23, 1994 under the chairmanship of M.R.
Awasthi, appellant No. 2.

B 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 causes of friction and to forge harmony
between 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 at the Bar to also go into
c 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
D No. 2 - M.R. Awasthi - as representative of the Union/Staff Association.
Consequently, the parties addressed us on the same and have also sub-
mitted written submissions.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently urged L
that even though appellant No. 2, M.R. Awasthi retired from the service
E of the respondent-Bank on January 31, 1995 on attaining 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 negotia-
tions to be held with the Management. He submitted that by virtue of the
provisions contained in Section 6( e) read with the provisions contained in
Section 22 of the Act the person who are not engaged or employed in any
F industry with 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 his retirement
from service of the Bank. He also urged that the scheme contemplated
G under Section 6( e) and Section 22 of the Act is identical to the one as
contemplated in Section 36 (1) 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
H Secretary of the Union is wholly illegal and void. This contention is
1
I

STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN. c. STATE BANK OF INDIA (FAIZAN UDDIN, J.j 1113

seriously opposed by the respondents as well as by the Staff Federation. In A
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 mies of a trade Union- A Trade B
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 thereof provide for the follow-
ing matters, namely-

(a) (b) (c) (d) ........ c
( e) The admission of ordinary members who shall be persons
actually engaged or employed in an industry with which the Trade
Union is connected, and also the admission of the number of
honorary or tempora~y members as (office bearers) required under
Section 22 to form the executive of the Trade Union.
D

(f), (g),(h), (i), G) ......................... .

Relevant part of Section 22 reads as under :

22. Proportion of officers to be connected with the industry. - Not E
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 conte1nplate.s two essential requirements. F
Firstly, the executive of the Trade Union n1ust be constituted in accordance
with the provisions of the Ac.l 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 G) of Section 6. Clause (e) of Section 6 of the Act provides
for admission of honorary or temporary members (office bearers) also in G
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 admis-
sion 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 H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A members as 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 an industry with which are Trade Union
is connected. That means the number of actually employed office bearers
B should in no case be less than half of the total number of office beares.
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 •.
C that such a member shall also have a right to negotiate with the manage-
ment 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.

D 9. Now coming to the contention that the scheme of Section 6 read
with section 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 repre-
sented 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 out Section 3
E is a complete answer to this submission. It may be seen that Section 3 of
the Industrial Disputes Act provides for the constitution of a Works
Committee consisting of the representatives of the employers and workmen
engaged in the establishment. It is significant to note that it clearly provides
that the representatives of workn1en shall be chosen in the presc1ibed nianner
fronz an1ongst the wo1knien engaged in the estab/islunent and in consultation
F with the Trade Union, if any, registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act,
1926. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Works Committee so con-
stituted is enjoined with the duty to promote measure for securing and
preserving amity a,_nd good relations between the employer and workmen
and, to that end, to comment upon the matters of their common interest
G or concern and endeavour 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 workmen have to be
chosen only from amongst the workmen already engaged in the estab-
lishment and not an outsider or an ex-workman of the establishment
concerned or any other person. It wou1d, therefore, not be correct to
H contend that having regard to the provisions of Section 36 read with Section
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN."· STATE BANK OF INDIA(FAIZAN UDDIN.I.( 1115

3 of the Industrial Disputes Act an honorary/temporary member or a A
private individual is entitled to represent the workmen in the matters
aforesaid. While referring to the provisions of the 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 harmonised with the relevant provisions of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947. It has also to be kept in view that the Industrial Disputes B
Act is a much later Act, which besides other matters, specifically con-
centrates 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 C
usage is followed by the respondent-Bank since decades whereby only
serving employees represent the Union in bilateral discussions with the
Bank and that this practice has been recognised by the 'Staff Federation'
also which is a body to coordinate the activities of various Unions/Associa-
tions 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 Federa- D
tion - intervenor.

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), (9)
and (14) of the Staff Association Rules are relevant for the purposes of the
case before us. Rule (5), (6) and (9) relate to the membership of the Union E
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 A.s.sociation provided, however, a member employee F
promoted to Supervisory Cadre shall have to apply for retaining
his membership in the usual manner.

6. Ho11or01y Members-Persons who are not eligible as members
under Rule 5 but are in sympathy with the objects and spirits of G
the Union may be elected Honorary Members at the Triennial or
Special Meeting of the General Council/Central Commit-
tee/Central Working Committee convened for the purpose. Be-
sides, 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 H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A representatives.

9. Ordinary members after retirement from the Bank's service shall •
not continue to be such members.

(a) None but an Ordinary/Honorary Member of the Association
B 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 Com-
mittee/Circle Committee/Unit Committee will forthwith cease to
be such member if he ceases to be an Ordinary/Honorary Member.
c
14. The management of the Union shall be vested in the Central
Committee which consists of : -

(a) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) ................ .
D (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 elected and one Dy, General Secretary elected by the Circle
General Council for each Zonal office of the State Bank of India.
E
(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
F 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............... con-
vened for the purpose. Further, according to Rule 9 ordinary members
after retirement from the Bank's service shall not continue to be such
G 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 Com-
mittee/Unit Committee but such ordinary/honorary member of the
aforesaid committees will forthwith ceased to be such member if he ceases
H to be an ordinary/honorary member, notwithstanding contained lo the
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN.'· STATE BANK OF INDIA [FAIZAN UDDIN, J.) 1117

contrary in the Rules. A

11. It may be noticed that M.R. Awasthi, appellant no. 2 was an
ordinary member of the Staff Association within the meaning of Rule 5 of
the Slaff Association Rules. Being such ordinary member he was elected
as General Secretary of the Staff Association in the triennial meeting held B
on October 16, 1994. Admittedly, M.R. Awasthi retired from the service of
the respondent-Bank on January 31, 1995 on attaining the age of superan-
nuation. 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. Conse-
quently, in view of Rule 9 M.R. Awashli, appellant Nd. 2 cannot legitimate- C
ly 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 not-
withstanding anything contained else where in the Rules, a member of the
Central Committee/Central Working Committee/Circle Committee/Unit D
Committee will forthwith cease to be such member if 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 al 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 E
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 ad-
ministrative circle of the said Bank should belong to any Branch/Office of
F
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 G
taken by the respondents and conveyed to the appellants through the
impugned letter date May 3, 1995.

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 H
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A 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 conducive to the
B 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 affiliates. Rule 8 of
the Federation Rules provides that affiliated Union/Association/Ad-
ministrative Circle shall h.ave the right to send any person as delegate to
C any General Body of the Federation who is a serving employee of the Bank J

and also an office-bearer of the affiliate. Further clause (g) of Ruic 20 of
the Federation Rules provides for affiliation to only such Union/Associa-
tions 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,
D 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
E 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 within the meaning of rule 6 of the Staff
F 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 any such resolution as alleged having been approved
in the meeting of the Central Committee on November 19, 1994, whereby
M.R. Awasthi is said to be elected/accepted as an honorary member of the
G Union after his retirement. Secondary, 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 Novem-
ber 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
H he was so elected in accordance with Rule 6 of Staff Association Rules.
STATE BANK OF INDIA ASSN.'· STATE BANK OF INDIA IFAIZAN UDDIN. l.I 1119

14. Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the intervenor A
supported by the respondcnls' 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 accord-
ing 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 B
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 date October 16, 1994 in which M.R. Awasthi was elected
as General Secretary was held without such approval of the Registrar, it
was unauthorised and election was invalid. The relevant part of Rule 38(a)
c
reads thus:

Trie11nial 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 D
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 E
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. Tliennial Meeting of the Circle General Council - The Triennial F
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.
G
15.. Admittedly, the triennial election of Staff Association, Lucknow
Circle became due in 1992. The triennial meeting of the circle was, how-
ever, called on October 16, 1994 in which M.R. Awasthi, appellant No. 2
is said 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 H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R.

A the prescribed period of 9 months as contained in Rule 38(a) and admit-
tedly 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. Awasthi, appellant No. 2 is said lo have been
elected as General Secretary in the said triennial meeting of the Council it
B 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
c 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 As-
D sociation, 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 repre-
sentation of those petitioners to the said writ petition within a period of
six weeks. Consequently the Registrar took up the matter and after hearing
E 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 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. Awasthi, 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 as well as the petition
fail and are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal and Petition dismissed.