Case: Bharat Co-Operative Bank Mumbai Limited Vs. Co-Operative Bank Employees Union

The facts giving rise to the appeal and which are undisputed are briefly stated as follows :( 3 ) THE appellant bank was originally registered under the MaharashtraSocieties Act, 1960. Subsequently, the Appellant Bank was registered under thee Societies Act, 1984 due to number of branches being outside Maharashtra. The appellant bank is in the banking business and is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the B. R. Act" ). The respondent is a trade union and represents the workmen employed in the appellant Bank. The respondent filed Complaint (U. L. P) No. 769 of 2002 under section 28 read with Item 5 of Schedule 11 and Items 3, 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "m. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act" ). An application for interim relief was also made before the Industrial Court at mumbai. The appellant bank in its reply, raised certain preliminary issues of jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. It was contended that as the appellant is a bank engaged in the business of banking and is a banking company as defined under Clause (c) of section 5 of the B. R. Act, considering the definition of appropriate Government under the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the ID Act") the appropriate Government would be the Central Government. Consequently the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, 1971 was not applicable. The Industrial Court at Mumbai on holding that the appropriate Government is the Central Government, accordingly ordered that the complaint would not be entertained and returned the same to the respondent for seeking appropriate relief before the appropriate forum. The respondent filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the order of the Industrial Court which was heard and disposed of by rebello, J. The learned Judge held that the appropriate Government is the state Government and not the Central Government and set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge, the appellant Bank has preferred this appeal.

Reasoning: ( 12 ) WE have no doubt that section 2 (bb) is an instance of the legislation by incorporation and not legislation by reference. Therefore we are not prepared to hold that the amendments which were made in B. R. Act after 1949 can be regarded as incorporated in the I. D. Act. It was not part of the B. R. Act when the I. D. Act was amended and section 2 (bb) was inserted. Nor in the adopted provisions of the B. R. Act is there anything to suggest that the legislature intended to bind itself to any future additions which might be made to that act. Again, there is nothing in the B. R. Act. to suggest that the amendments enacted to it are to be treated as in anyway, retrospective or are to be regarded as affecting any other enactment than the B. R. Act itself. What the legislature has done is nothing more than incorporating the definition of "banking company" in the B. R. Act and, for convenience of drafting, it has done so by reference to that Act instead of setting out for itself at length the provisions which it decided to adopt. ( 13 ) ON behalf of appellant bank a reference was made to the decision of the supreme Court in (Bhatinda Improvement Trust v. Balwant Singh), 1991 (4)s. C. C. 368 where the Court while construing Rule 3 of Jute Manufacturers cess Rules, 1976 held that the words "central Excise Act" and "rules" contained in the said Rule should be construed as if the words "for the time being in force" were there after the words "the provisions of Central Excise and Salt act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and the Rules made thereunder". We are afraid that the decision does not in any way assist the appellant. Rule 3 with which the supreme Court was concerned, made the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder applicable in the matter of levy and collection of cess under the Jute Rules. It was a clear case of legislation by reference. In such a case, naturally the subsequent amendments and alterations made to the Central Excise Act and the Rules would ipso facto get imported into the jute Rules. As against this the language used by the legislature in enacting section 2 (bb) clearly suggests a case of legislation by incorporation. In such a case, it is well settled that subsequent amendments or alterations made in the former enactment would not affect the incorporation statute. ( 14 ) IN the circumstances, we are in agreement with the view expressed by learned Single Judge that the subsequent amendments to the B. R. Act will not be attracted in respect of definition of "appropriate Government" in the i. D. Act. Consequently, the "appropriate Government" in respect of the multi statebanks having branches in more than one State would be the State Government and not the Central Government. Before parting with this matter, we may mention that on behalf of the respondent union, it was argued that the definition of "banking company" as contained in section 5 (c)of the B. R. Act has not been amended by the Amendment Act 23 of 1966 or by any other amendment. But by virtue of section 56 the provisions of the B. R. Act are made applicable in the manner indicated by that section. It is not necessary for us to express any view on this issue as, in our opinion, the definition of the "banking company" will have to be read as it existed on the date of incorporation of section 2 (bb) for the purpose of deciding as to which is the "appropriate Government" and so read the appropriate Government in respect ofe banks would be the State Government.