AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are the respondents in the writ petition filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, out of which this appeal arises. 4) Appellant No.1 is an Association of various Staff Unions of the employees working in the Bank of India respondent No.2 herein. Appellant No.1 is a registered Association under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Appellant No.2 is an employee of Respondent No.2 Bank and at the relevant time was working as Deputy General Secretary of appellant No.1Association. 5) The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") deals with Banking Companies and their internal affairs. Section 9 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make scheme after consultation with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that category. 11) On 28.05.2009, the Management of the Bank (respondent No.2) called upon the appellants to furnish a panel of three workers/employees for being nominated as a Director in order of preference in the category of "Workman Director" in the Board of Directors. 12) The appellants, in compliance with the request made by respondent No.2, sent a panel of three names of the workers/employees in order of preference to the Central Government by their letter dated 08.06.2009. These names were Mr. Dinesh Jha "Lallan", Mr. Ram Gopal Sharma and Mr. Pranab Kumar Roy Chowdhary. 13) The Secretary, Government of India, by letter dated 10.10.2009, however, informed the appellants that since all the three workers/employees, whose name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Directors. 16) In the alternative, the appellants also sought a declaration that clause 3 (2) (iii) of the Scheme, 1970 be struck down as being ultra vires the Constitution. 17) The respondents opposed the writ petition by filing their counter affidavit. The respondents placed reliance on the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder and contended inter alia that the challenge made in the writ petition has no factual or/and legal basis. 18) By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition finding no merit therein, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by the unsuccessful writ petitioners Union of workers/employees in this Court. 19) Heard Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs/employees and the other for the officers/employees while considering their cases for nomination as Director from their respective categories. 25) In other words, the submission is that the disqualification provided in Clause 3(2)(iii)(b) of the Scheme for the worker/employee category is only confined to their category. No such similar disqualification is made applicable to the officer/employee category. 26) This, according to the appellants, has created discrimination between the two categories of the Directors without any reasonable basis and, therefore, Clause 3(2)(iii) of the Scheme and especially clause (b) thereof violates the principle underlined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 27) We find no merit in this subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion (3) of section 9 of the Act, shall be nominated by the Central Government from out of a panel of three such employees furnished to it by the representative union, within a date to be specified by the Central Government, which date shall not be more than six weeks from the date of communication made by the Central Government, requiring the representative union to furnish the panel of names: Provided that where the Central Government is of the opinion that owing to the delay which is likely to occur in the verification and certification of any union or federation as a representative union it is necessary in the interest of the Nationalised Bank so to do, it may nominate any employee of the Nationalised Bannk, who is a workman, to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on between the worker and the officer. The former, i.e., worker is defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is governed by that Act whereas the latter, i.e., officer is not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act but is governed by separate service rules. Both these categories of employees, therefore, cannot be equated with each other and nor can be placed at par for providing equal qualification or/and disqualification for their nomination as a Director in the Board of Directors. Fourth, Article 14 of the Constitution applies inter se two equals and not inter se unequals. The case at hand falls under the latter category and, therefore, reliance placed on the principle enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitutio....