Section 22 Strike Curbs Apply to All Bank Staff | HC

Case Details: Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Federal Bank Officers Association [2026] 185 taxmann.com 196 (HC-Kerala)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Syam Kumar V.M., JJ.
• C.U. Singh, Benny P. Thomas, Sr. Advs., Abel Tom Benny, D. Prem Kamath & Tom Thomas (Kakkuzhiyil), Advs. for the Appellant.
• P. Chidambaram, P. Ramakrishnan, Sr. Advs. & P.R. Ajith Kumar, CGC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was a banking company governed by the Banking Regulation Act, with pan-India operations. The respondent was an officers’ association representing officers in Scales I to III and registered under the Trade Unions Act.

The Central Government, by Gazette Notification dated 5 June 2023, notified services engaged in the banking industry as a public utility service under Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The respondent issued a call for a strike or work abstention in relation to employees/officers of the appellant bank. Following the strike call, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) issued notices invoking Section 22, calling upon the respondent to participate in conciliation proceedings and restraining it from proceeding with the proposed strike/abstention.

Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the said notices. The Single Judge held that officers represented by the respondent did not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Further, an ‘industrial dispute’ under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 required an employer–workman relationship; that Chapter V provisions applied to the workmen and employers; that a Conciliation Officer could act only when an industrial dispute existed or was apprehended; and that, since members were not workmen, Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not be invoked.

It was noted that Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, places a statutory embargo on “any person” and not only on “workmen”.

Further, it was noted that Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applies even when the workers are not involved. In contrast, Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applies only to disputes involving workers.

Also, it was noted that the right to collective bargaining by resorting to strikes or lockouts by employees of any establishment falls outside constitutional protections of Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that there was no basis for inference that managerial or supervisory employees of higher ranks or cadres were excluded from provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Further, the High Court observed that the restrictions imposed under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were intended to protect public interests and ensure the smooth operation of a PUS.

The High Court held that the very definition of ‘strike’ under Section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contemplates that officers and non-workmen employees are included within the expression “body of persons employed in any industry”. Therefore, the impugned order of the Single Judge was to be set aside.

List of Cases Referred to

• Narendra Kumar Sen v. All India Industrial Disputes (Labour Appellate) Tribunal AIR 1953 Bom 325 (para 6)
• Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers’ Association 2004 taxmann.com 2985 (SC) (para 6)
• Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate AIR 1958 SC 353 (para 6)
• T.K. Rangarajan v. Government of Tamil Nadu 2003 taxmann.com 4792 (SC) (para 17)
• Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar [1998] 1997 taxmann.com 2114 (SC) (para 17.3)
• Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 (para 17.3)
• All India Bank Employees’ Association v. National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay 1961 taxmann.com 83 (SC) (para 18)
• B.R. Singh v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 710 (para 20).