THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.218 OF 2010 12th April 2010. Between: P.MANIKYALA RAO .. APPELLANT AND THE SYNDICATE BANK REGIONAL OFFICE(RURAL) PIONEER HOUSE, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER /DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.218 OF 2010 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. The writ appellant - an employee of the respondent 1-Syndicate Bank facing the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dated 26.5.2009 registered a grievance in the earlier round of litigation viz., W.P.No.19474 of 2009 that he was denied the opportunity of availing the services of a lawyer, accordingly the indulgence of the court was prayed for to command the respondents to allow him to engage a lawyer. Relief sought was declined but at the same time interests of the appellant were protected providing for his representation as per the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The direction was complied with enabling the appellant to choose his representative out of three persons nominated by the Union. Notwithstanding due compliance with the judgment dated 16-11- 2009 the petitioner filed yet another writ petition seeking a direction to compel the respondents to resort to Clause 12(a)(ii) of the Bipartite Settlement, which reads: “At the request of the said Union by a representative of the State Federaton or all India Organisation to which such Union is affiliated” 2. The writ court being of the opinion that the writ petitioner has been permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered trade Union of bank employees in terms of clause 12(a)(i)(x) of the Bipartite Settlement, declined interference. To appreciate the view taken by the learned single Judge, clause 12(a)(i)(x) of the Bipartite Settlement is extracted: “ By a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry.” A bare perusal of the clause makes it clear that the clause provides for an alternative mode of representation to the employee, but condition precedent for invocation of the said clause is a request by the Union of the bank employees, which is wanting. Apparently, the clause relied upon has no application to the case on hand. In the aforementioned backdrop, we could not persuade ourselves to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned single Judge. Dismissed. SANJAY KUMAR, J. NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, C.J. 12TH April, 2010. Nagesh Babu THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.218 of 2010 O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 12th April 2010.