Union members to be absorbed as employees; canteen staff as bank employees. Industrial Tribunal urged for expedited resolution.

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of the union, directing the bank to absorb union members as employees and treat canteen employees as bank employees. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the Industrial Tribunal to expedite the hearing and issue an Award within six months, citing recent judgments in similar cases. The Court highlighted the importance of awaiting the Tribunal's decision to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure a clear resolution based on factual findings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus directing the absorption of union members as bank employees.
2. Dispute regarding the status of canteen employees and their relationship with the bank.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the Writ Petition when the issue was pending before the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Application of recent judgments in similar cases to the present situation.
5. Directions to expedite the hearing and render an Award by the Industrial Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The respondents sought a writ of mandamus from the Calcutta High Court to direct the appellants to absorb the union members as employees of the bank. The Single Judge initially ordered a stay on the matter for three months, allowing the parties to proceed before the Tribunal. However, the Division Bench later heard the main case and the appeal against the interim order together, ruling in favor of the union and directing the bank to treat canteen employees as bank employees.

2. The Division Bench made findings on disputed facts, assuming similarity between the canteen employees in question and those run by the bank. The bank argued that the canteens in dispute were not similar to those run by the bank, highlighting differences in staff strength and operational necessity. The Court noted that the High Court should have awaited the Industrial Tribunal's decision on the matter, as the issue was already pending there.

3. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have entertained the Writ Petition while an identical issue was before the Industrial Tribunal. The Court directed the Industrial Tribunal to expedite the hearing and render an Award within six months to avoid delays and ensure a clear resolution based on facts and materials.

4. The Court referred to recent judgments in similar cases to guide the decision-making process, emphasizing the need for clear and elaborate findings on facts. The judgments cited were used to support the direction for the Industrial Tribunal to expedite the proceedings and render a timely decision.

5. In light of the pending issue before the Industrial Tribunal, the Supreme Court directed the parties to await the Tribunal's Award and listed the appeals for hearing after the Tribunal's decision. This approach aimed to streamline the process, avoid duplication of efforts, and ensure a comprehensive resolution based on the Tribunal's findings.

---