1998 (5) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le judge passed the following order:- " The Court: having heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State Bank of India it is directed that the matter will come as application 3 months hence. A/O by 6 weeks and Reply by 3 weeks thereafter. Pendency of the petition will not prevent the parties to proceed before the Tribunal in the manner mentioned in the petition. Any step to be taken by the respondent pursuant to the impugned settlement will abide by the result of the writ petition. Liberty to mention for early hearing after filling of affidavit. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking." Aggrieved by the above order, respondents 1 to 3 moved the Division Bench ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....still the Division Bench, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, gave findings on questions of disputed facts. Two important aspects on which the facts seriously disputed were that the canteen employees were not the employees of the bank as there was no relationship of employer and employee and there was no similarity between the canteens in dispute and the canteens run by the bank. The Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the canteen employees of the bank and the canteens run by the bank and the canteens now in question are similar in all respects. It appears that as a result of bipartite agreement between the bank and employees federation (after four stages) ultimately the Bank agreed t....