{"id":200839,"date":"2005-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005"},"modified":"2016-10-09T08:09:33","modified_gmt":"2016-10-09T02:39:33","slug":"state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, H. K. Sema<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3396 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nState Bank's Staff Union Madras\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & H. K. SEMA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in this Appeal is to judgment of a Division
\nBench of  Madras High Court holding that customary bonus
\nwas not payable by the State Bank of India (in short the
\n‘Bank’) after Banking Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central
\nAct No. 64 of 1984) (in short the ‘Amendment Act’) was
\nenacted. Appellant has questioned constitutional validity
\nof the said amendment before the Madras High Court by
\nfiling a writ petition which was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Factual position which is almost undisputed is as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tBy the Amendment Act, State Bank of India Act, 1955 (in
\nshort the ‘State Bank Act’) and State Bank of India
\n(Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (in short the ‘Subsidiary
\nAct’) and Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
\nUndertakings) Acts, 1970 and the Banking Companies
\n(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (in
\nshort ‘the Undertakings Acts’) were amended.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy that amending Act, a new Section 43-A comprising of
\nthree sub sections (1), (2) and (3) and marginal heading
\n“Bonus” was introduced in the State Bank Act. The said
\nSection reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“(1) No Officer, Adviser or other Employee
\n(other than an employee within the meaning
\nof Clause (13) of Section 2 of the Payment
\nof Bonus Act, 1965 (21 of 1965) of the
\nState Bank shall be entitled to be paid any
\nbonus.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) No employee of the State Bank, being an
\nemployee within the meaning of Clause (13)
\nof Section 2 of the Payment of Bonus Act,
\n1965 (21 of 1965), shall be entitled to be
\npaid any bonus except in accordance with
\nthe provisions of that Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) The provisions of this Section shall
\nhave effect notwithstanding any judgment,
\ndecree or order of any Court, Tribunal or
\nother authority and notwithstanding
\nanything contained in any other provision
\nof this Act or in the Industrial Disputes
\nAct, 1947 (14 of 1947), or any other law
\nfor the time being in force or any practice
\nusage or custom or any contract, agreement,
\nsettlement, award or other instrument.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the Subsidiary Act, a new Section 50A was introduced
\nin identical language.  Similar provisions numbered as
\nSection 12-A were introduced in the Banking Undertakings
\nActs.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Statement of Objects and Reasons, which accompanied
\nthe Bill which later became the Amending Act, reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In an award notified as 14.1.1984, the
\nCentral Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras
\nheld that the employees of the State Bank of
\nIndia covered by the award should be paid
\nbonus at the rate of one month’s substantive
\npay every half year on the ground that this
\nhas also along been the custom and practice.
\nA writ petition filed against this award is
\npending in the Madras High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll public Sector banks including the State
\nBank of India come under the purview of the
\nPayment of Bonus Act, 1965, and the intention
\nis that no bonus other than what is required
\nto be paid under the Payment of Bonus Act,
\n1965, shall be paid to the employee of the
\nState Bank of India or of any other pubic
\nsector bank.  It is proposed to make express
\nprovisions in this behalf in the State Bank of
\nIndia Act, 1955 and the enactment relating to
\nthe other public sector banks.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThat award of the Central Government Industrial
\nTribunal was challenged by the Management in a writ
\npetition filed in the Madras High Court being Writ
\nPetition No.1273 of 1984.  It was during the pendency of
\nthat petition in the High Court, that the State Bank Act
\ncame to be amended by introducing Section 43-A in that
\nAct.  On 24.11.1986, the Writ Petition filed by the Bank
\nwas dismissed.  The matter was not further agitated, and
\nthe award attained finality.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellant’s primary stand before the High Court was
\nthat the Amendment Act was unconstitutional as it merely
\nintended to nullify a judicial decision which Parliament
\nhad no competence to do. Other contentions were to the
\neffect that an award passed under the Industrial Disputes
\nAct, 1947 (in short ‘the Industrial Act’) is entitled to
\ngreater recognition as in the case of conflict between the
\nprovisions of General Law i.e. State Bank Act and the
\nIndustrial Act the latter Act must prevail.  The bonus
\nwhich was directed to be paid was in the nature of
\ndeferred wages and the impugned legislation had the effect
\nof freezing wages.  Parliament is not vested with the
\npower to reduce the wages and therefore the legislation is
\nultra vires.  Effect of an award under the Industrial Act
\ncannot be wiped out except in the manner provided under
\nthe Industrial Act and since in the instant case that has
\nnot been done, the award was binding on the parties
\nconcerned.  The bonus being a customary bonus was peculiar
\nto the employees of the Bank and mere fact that other
\npublic sector banks were not being paid such bonus is of
\nreally no consequence. Stand that financial implications
\nwere enormous is also of no consequence.  The Union of
\nIndia and the Bank took the stand that the Amendment Act
\nwas a valid piece of legislation. It was not merely
\nintended to invalidate an award by acting as an Appellate
\nAuthority, and it is not a case of any judicial power
\nbeing usurped by the legislation.  The High Court
\nnegatived the contentions of the appellants and dismissed
\nthe Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe points urged before the High Court was reiterated
\nby learned counsel for the appellant.  Reference was made
\nto a decision of this Court in Vegetable Products Ltd.  v.
\nTheir Workmen (AIR<\/a> 1965 SCC 1499) to highlight the basic
\nfeatures of customary bonus.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted in the case of officers of the Bank
\nthat the quantum representing bonus merged with the basic
\npay and consequential increase in Dearness Allowance and
\nsuperannuation benefits were granted. That being so, bonus
\nis nothing but deferred wage.  Continued payment of bonus
\nmade it a condition of service and the same could not have
\nbeen altered without following the provisions of Section
\n9A of the Act.  Customary bonus is one which is paid
\ndehors the bonus paid under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
\n(in short the ‘Bonus Act’).  Customary bonus is untouched
\nby the Bonus Act.  The Industrial Act is a special Act qua
\nthe State Bank Act. Issues relating to continuance of
\nservice and disputes relating thereof are covered by the
\nIndustrial Act. While some of the aspects can be taken to
\nbe covered by the State Bank Act, non compliance with the
\nspecial Act i.e. Industrial Act rendered the Amendment Act
\ninvalid. The intention of the Amendment Act was to
\ninvalidate the award as is evident from the Statement of
\nObjects and Reasons of the Amendment Act. Customary bonus
\nis not profit linked. Amendment even if accepted to be
\nvalid can only have prospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the Bank and the Union
\nof India submitted that the payment of customary bonus was
\ncreating different yardsticks for different public sector
\nbanks.  The award was challenged by the Bank in a Writ
\nPetition.  During the pendency of the writ petition, the
\namendment was enacted.  Unfortunately the High Court did
\nnot take note of the Amendment Act and Custom even if it
\nacquires a force of law, can be changed as there is no
\nfundamental right involved in any custom.  Bonus cannot be
\ncalled deferred wages and even if it is conceded for the
\nsake of argument that the payment of customary bonus was a
\ncondition of service, after insertion of Section 43A by
\nthe Amendment Act the same has no operation.  The
\nprovision brings about uniformity.  The payments were
\nrelated to profits and they were not uniform, so in that
\nsense it was not really be a condition of service or a
\ndeferred wage.  The High Court has also dealt with the
\nSpecial Act and the deferred wages concept.  The Amendment
\nAct really brought in a curative provision, and no
\nretrospective effect has been given to the Amendment Act.
\nSection 9A of the Industrial Act has no application as the
\nParliament has the power to legislate on that aspect.  A
\nbare look at the impugned provision makes it clear that it
\nis not a case of legislature by mere declaration or
\nwithout anything more, overriding a judicial decision.  On
\nthe other hand it is a case of rendering a judicial
\ndecision ineffective by enacting a valid law within
\nlegislative field of the legislature.  Merely because a
\nreference has been made to the award in the Statement of
\nObjects and Reasons, that cannot in any way affect the
\nplain intention in enacting the law under challenge and it
\nis not correct to say that the intention was to declare
\nthe decision of Tribunal as invalid and as such judicial
\npower has been usurped by legislation.\n<\/p>\n
\tFollowing four circumstances have to be fulfilled in
\norder to be entitled to payment of customary or
\ntraditional bonus, as was noted in M\/s. Grahams Trading
\nCo. v. Their Workmen (AIR<\/a> 1959 SC 1151) and in Vegetable
\nProducts case (supra):\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i) that the payment has been made over an
\nunbroken series of years;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) that it has been for a sufficiently long
\nperiod, the period has to be longer than in
\nthe case of an implied term of employment;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) that it has been paid even in years of
\nloss and did not depend on the earning of
\nprofits; and<\/p>\n
    (iv) that the payment has been made at a
\nuniform rate throughout to justify an
\ninference that the payment at such and such
\nrate had become customary and traditional in
\nthe particular concern.”\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that
\nconsidering the nature of customary bonus, the Amendment
\nAct was really taking away a right conferred. This Court
\nin Upendra Chandra Chakraborty and Anr. v. United Bank of
\nIndia (AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1010) observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“There is one other aspect of the claim
\nnow put forward, which cannot be lost sight
\nof, which affords an additional reason to
\nreject the contention of the appellants.  The
\nrespondent is a nationalized bank.  Roughly
\nin all there are 25 nationalised banks.  The
\nconcept of any customary bonus is unknown to
\nnationalized banks.  All the nationalized
\nbanks are wholly owned Undertakings of the
\nGovernment of India.  In the matter of bonus,
\nthe employees of all the nationalized banks
\nmust be dealt with on a common denominator.
\nIf therefore the contention of the appellants
\nwere to prevail, the employees of the
\nrespondent, which is only one amongst many
\nnationalized banks, would enjoy an undeserved
\nadvantage compared to their counterparts in
\nother nationalized banks and even in the
\nother branches of the respondent bank and may
\nbecome a cause of disharmony and inequality.
\nTherefore, in larger public interest also,
\nthe demand for customary bonus otherwise
\nfound to be untenable, must be negatived.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Underlined for emphasis)<\/p>\n
\tIt is a cardinal rule of interpretation that Objects
\nand Reasons of a Statute is to be looked into as an
\nextrinsic aid to find out legislative intent only when the
\nmeaning of the statute by its ordinary language is obscure
\nor ambiguous.  But if the words used in a statute are
\nclear and unambiguous then the statute itself declares the
\nintention of the legislature and in such a case, it would
\nnot be permissible for a court to interpret the Statute by
\nexamining the Objects and Reasons for the Statute in
\nquestion.(See: S.S. Bola vs. B.D. Sardana AIR<\/a> 1997 SC
\n3127).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe smooth balance built with delicacy must always be
\nmaintained, and in the anxiety to safeguard judicial
\npower, it is unnecessary to be over-zealous and conjure up
\nincursion into the judicial preserve to invalidate the
\nvalid law competently made. (see: Indian Aluminium Co. vs.
\nState of Kerala 1996(7) SCC 637).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Jalan Trading Co. vs. Mill Mazdoor Sabha (AIR<\/a> 1967
\nSC 691) it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is true that by the impugned
\nlegislation, certain principles declared by
\nthis Court e.g. in Express Newspapers
\n(Private) Ltd. vs. Union of India,<\/a> 1959 SCR
\n12: AIR 1958 SC 578) in respect of grant of
\nbonus were modified, but on that account it
\ncannot be said that the legislation operates
\nas fraud on the Constitution or is a
\ncolourable exercise of legislative power.
\nParliament has normally power within the
\nframe-work of the Constitution to enact
\nlegislation which modified principles
\nenunciated by this Court as applicable to the
\ndetermination of any dispute, and by
\nexercising that power, the Parliament does
\nnot perpetrate fraud on the Constitution.  An
\nenactment may be charged as colourable, and
\non that account valid, only if it be found
\nthat the legislature has by enacting it
\ntrespassed upon a field outside its
\ncompetence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the Indian Aluminium case (supra) in paragraph 56
\ncertain principles have been set out. Those principles
\ninter alia include the principles that the Court in its
\nanxiety to safeguard judicial power must not be over-
\nzealous and conjure up incursion into the judicial
\npreserve invalidating the valid law competently made; the
\nCourt should scan the law to find out : (a) whether the
\nvice pointed out by the court and invalidity suffered by
\nprevious law is cured after complying with the legal and
\nconstitutional requirements; (b) whether the Legislature
\nhas competence to validate the law; (c) whether such
\nvalidation is consistent with the rights guaranteed in
\nPart III of the Constitution. So far as the legislature is
\nconcerned, it cannot by mere declaration, without anything
\nmore, overrule, revise, or override a judicial decision.
\nIt may, however, render judicial decision ineffective by
\nenacting valid law on the topic within its legislative
\nfield fundamentally altering or changing its character
\nretrospectively.  The changed or altered conditions should
\nbe such that the previous decision would not have been
\nrendered by the Court, if those altered or changed
\nconditions had existed at the time of declaring the law as
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt this juncture, we may also take note of what was
\nstated by Hidaytullah, CJI in the case of Shri Prithvi
\nCotton Mills Ltd. vs. Broach Borough Municipality<\/a> (1969
\n(2) SCC 283):\n<\/p>\n
“A Court’s decision must always bind unless
\nthe conditions on which it is based are so
\nfundamentally altered that the decision could
\nnot have been given in the altered
\ncircumstances.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe principle was reiterated in State of Tamil Nadu  v.
\nArooran Sugars Ltd.<\/a> (1997 (1) SCC 326).\n<\/p>\n
\tAs was noted by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
\nChairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah &
\nOrs.<\/a> (1997 (6) SCC 623), once a person joins service under
\nthe Government, the relationship between him and the
\nGovernment is in the nature of a status rather than
\ncontractual and the terms of his service while he is in
\nemployment, are governed by statute or statutory rules,
\nwhich may be altered without the consent of the employees.
\nThis effect of a non-obstante clause and validating Act
\nhas been examined by this Court from time to time.
\nReference has already been made to the decision in Shri
\nPrithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra). The view expressed by
\nHidayatullah, C.J.I. has been reiterated in Arooran Sugars
\ncase (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe decision in Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India<\/a>
\n(1978 (2) SCC 50) which was one of the major planks of
\narguments before the High Court and this Court was
\nexplained in the last named case. It was rendered in the
\ndifferent factual background.  This was categorically
\npointed out and the decision was explained in the said
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\tEvery sovereign legislature possesses the right to make
\nretrospective legislation. The power to make laws includes
\npower to give it retrospective effect.  Craies on Statute
\nLaw (7th Edn.) at p. 387 defines retrospective statutes
\nin the following words:\n<\/p>\n
\t“A statute is to be deemed to be
\nretrospective, which takes away or impairs
\nany vested right acquired under existing
\nlaws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes
\na new duty, or attaches a new disability in
\nrespect to transactions or considerations
\nalready past.”\n<\/p>\n
\tJudicial Dictionary (13th Edn.) K.J. Aiyar,
\nButterworth, p. 857, states that the word “retrospective”
\nwhen used with reference to an enactment may mean (i)
\naffecting an existing contract; or (ii) reopening up of
\npast, closed and completed transaction; or (iii) affecting
\naccrued rights and remedies; or (iv) affecting procedure.
\nWords and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 37-A, pp. 224-25,
\ndefines a “retrospective or retroactive law” as one which
\ntakes away or impairs vested or accrued rights acquired
\nunder existing laws. A retroactive law takes away or
\nimpairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or
\ncreates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches
\na new disability, in respect to transaction or
\nconsiderations already past.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyar (3rd
\nEdition, 2005) the expressions “retroactive” and
\n“retrospective” have been defined as follows at page 4124
\nVol.4)<\/p>\n
“Retroactive- Acting backward; affecting
\nwhat is past. (Of a statute, ruling, etc.)
\nextending in scope or effect to matters that
\nhave occurred in the past. – Also termed
\nretrospective. (Black, 7th Edn. 1999)<\/p>\n
‘Retroactivity’ is a term often used by
\nlawyers but rarely defined. On analysis it
\nsoon becomes apparent, moreover, that it is
\nused to cover at least two distinct concepts.
\nThe first, which may be called ‘true
\nretroactivity’, consists in the application
\nof a new rule of law to an act or transaction
\nwhich was completed before the rule was
\npromulgated. The second concept, which will
\nbe referred to as ‘quasi-retroactivity’,
\noccurs when a new rule of law is applied to
\nan act or transaction in the process of
\ncompletion……The foundation of these
\nconcepts is the distinction between completed
\nand pending transactions….” (T.C. Hartley,
\nThe Foundations of European Community Law 129
\n(1981).\n<\/p>\n
Retrospective- Looking back; contemplating
\nwhat is past.\n<\/p>\n
Having operation from a past time.\n<\/p>\n
‘Retrospective’ is somewhat ambiguous and
\nthat good deal of confusion has been caused
\nby the fact that it is used in more senses
\nthan one. In general however the Courts
\nregards as retrospective any statute which
\noperates on cases or facts coming into
\nexistence before its commencement in the
\nsense that it affects even if for the future
\nonly the character or consequences of
\ntransactions previously entered into or of
\nother past conduct.  Thus, a statute is not
\nretrospective merely because it affects
\nexisting rights; nor is it retrospective
\nmerely because a part of the requisite for
\nits action is drawn from a time and
\nantecedents to its passing. (Vol.44
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition,
\npage 570 para 921).”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question of retrospectively affecting the award is
\nfactually of academic interest. It was admitted before the
\nHigh Court that all amount payable under the award for the
\nprior period has been paid.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, p. 692 it was observed
\nthat
\n\t“it is necessary that the legislature
\nshould be able to cure inadvertent defects in
\nstatutes or their administration by making
\nwhat has been aptly called ‘small repairs’.
\nMoreover, the individual who claims that a
\nvested right has arisen from the defect is
\nseeking a windfall since had the
\nlegislature’s or administrator’s action had
\nthe effect it was intended to and could have
\nhad, no such right would have arisen.  Thus
\nthe interest in the retroactive curing of
\nsuch a defect in the administration of
\ngovernment outweighs the individual’s
\ninterest in benefiting from the defect”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above passage was quoted with approval by the
\nConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of The Asstt.
\nCommr. of Urban Land Tax v. The Buckingham and Carnatic
\nCo. Ltd.<\/a> (1969 (2) SCC 55).  In considering the question
\nas to whether the legislative power to amend a provision
\nwith retrospective operation has been reasonably exercised
\nor not, various factors have to be considered.  It was
\nobserved in the case of Stott v. Stott Realty Co. (284
\nN.W. 635) – as noted in Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn.,
\nVol.37-A, p. 2250 that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The constitutional prohibition of the
\npassage of ‘retroactive laws’ refers only to
\nretroactive laws that injuriously affect some
\nsubstantial or vested right, and does not
\nrefer to those remedies adopted by a
\nlegislative body for the purpose of providing
\na rule to secure for its citizens the
\nenjoyment of some natural right, equitable and
\njust in itself, but which they were not able
\nto enforce on account of defects in the law or
\nits omission to provide the relief necessary
\nto secure such right.”\n<\/p>\n
\tCraies on Statute Law (7th Edn.) at p. 396 observes
\nthat:\n<\/p>\n
\t“If a statute is passed for the purpose
\nof protecting the public against some evil or
\nabuse, it may be allowed to operate
\nretrospectively, although by such operation
\nit will deprive some person or persons of a
\nvested right.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus public interest at large is one of the relevant
\nconsiderations in determining the constitutional validity
\nof a retrospective legislation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above position was elaborately noted in Virendra
\nSingh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.<\/a> (2004 (12)
\nSCC 588).\n<\/p>\n
\tCurative Statutes are by their very nature intended to
\noperate upon and affect past transactions. Curative and
\nvalidating statutes operate on conditions already existing
\nand are therefore wholly retrospective and can have no
\nretrospective operation.\n<\/p>\n
\tBlackstone J in Nicol v. Verelst (1779 (26) E.R. 751)
\nheld that “declaratory do not prove that law was otherwise
\nbefore, but rather the reverse”.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is no quarrel and in fact in our opinion rightly
\nthat legislature cannot by a mere declaration, without
\nanything more, directly overrule, reverse or override a
\njudicial decision.  However, it may, at any time in
\nexercise of the plenary powers conferred on it by the
\nConstitution render a judicial decision ineffective by
\nenacting a valid law on a topic within its legislative
\nfield, fundamentally altering or changing with
\nretrospective, curative or neutralizing effect the
\ncondition on which such decision is based (see: I.N.
\nSaxena etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976 (4) SCC 750).\n<\/p>\n
\tAs noted in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain<\/a>  (1975
\n(suppl.) SCC 1) rendering ineffective of judgments or
\norders of competent Courts or Tribunals by changing their
\nbasis by legislative enactment is a well known pattern of
\nall validating Acts. Such validating legislation which
\nremoves the causes for ineffectiveness or invalidity of
\nactions or proceedings is not an encroachment on judicial
\npower.  There is a distinction between encroachment on the
\njudicial power and nullification of the effect of a
\njudicial decision by changing the law retrospectively.  As
\nnoted by this Court in M\/s. Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath,
\nLucknow v. State of U.P. and Anr.<\/a> (1973 (3) SCC 585) the
\nformer is outside the competence of the legislature but
\nthe latter is within its permissible limits.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt has to be noted that the legislature, as a body,
\ncannot be accused of having passed a law for extraneous
\npurpose. If no reasons are stated as appear from the
\nprovisions enacted by it, its reasons for passing a law
\nare those stated in the Objects and Reasons. Even assuming
\nthat the Executive, in a given case, has an ulterior
\nmotive in moving a legislation, that motive cannot render
\nthe passing of the law mala fide. This kind of
\n“Transferred malice” is unknown in the field of
\nlegislation. (See K. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Andhra
\nPradesh and Anr. (AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 551) and G.C. Kanungo v.
\nState of Orissa (AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 1655).\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that vested
\nrights cannot be taken away by the legislation by way of
\nretrospective legislation. The plea is without substance.
\nWhenever any amendment is brought in force retrospectively
\nor any provision of the Act is deleted retrospectively, in
\nthis process rights of some are bound to be effective one
\nway or the other. In every case the exercise by
\nlegislature by introducing a new provision or deleting an
\nexisting provision with retrospective effect per se does
\nnot amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
\nThe legislature can change, as observed by this Court in
\nCauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Re (1993 Supp. (1) SCC 96
\n(II)), the basis on which a decision is given by the Court
\nand thus change the law in general, which will affect a
\nclass of persons and events at large. It cannot, however,
\nset aside an individual decision inter parties and affect
\ntheir rights and liabilities alone. Such an act on the
\npart of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial
\npower by the State and to function as an appellate Court
\nor Tribunal, which is against the concept of separation of
\npowers.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe amendment made by the impugned enactments is to the
\nState Bank Act and other statutes relating to some other
\nBanks. The Bank undoubtedly has power in terms of Section
\n7(1) of the State Bank Act to change the conditions of
\nservice of those of its employees, who had earlier served
\nwith Imperial Bank of India. By enforcement of the Act, the
\nundertaking of Imperial Bank of India was transferred to the
\nBank. Employees of erstwhile Imperial Bank of India cannot
\ntake the stand that they have an unalterable right in their
\nterms and conditions of employment. So far as other
\nemployees are concerned, Section 43 of the Act empowers the
\nBank to determine terms and conditions of their service.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Parliament has power to legislate on the topic of
\nbonus and it is not precluded from legislating on that
\ntopic, other than the Bonus Act. The mere fact that an award
\nhas been made under the Industrial Act cannot have the
\neffect of preventing the Parliament for all times to come
\nfrom amending the law on the foundation of which the award
\nwas made. This of course is subject to same being not
\ninconsistent with provision of Part III of the Constitution;
\nand also being within the legislative competence of the
\nParliament.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs noted above, the impugned Act did not merely declare
\nthe Tribunal’s award inoperative. There is nothing to show
\nthat the Parliament intended to exercise appellate powers
\nover the Tribunal or the High Court by enacting the amending
\nAct. The said Act in clear and unambiguous terms prohibits
\nthe grant of bonus to the employees of public Sector Banks,
\nexcept in accordance with the Bonus Act, and also limits
\nsuch payment only to those eligible under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe amended provision operates notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in any other law, including the Industrial Act,
\nand similarly notwithstanding anything contained in any
\njudgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of what has been stated above, the conclusion
\nis inevitable that the High Court’s judgment does not
\nsuffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.  The
\nappeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, H. K. Sema CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3396 of 2001 PETITIONER: State Bank’s Staff Union Madras RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/09\/2005 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Bank'S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank'S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-09T02:39:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-09T02:39:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4404,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\",\"name\":\"State Bank'S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-09T02:39:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Bank'S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank'S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-09T02:39:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-09T02:39:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005"},"wordCount":4404,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005","name":"State Bank'S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-09T02:39:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-banks-staff-union-madras-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-15-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank’S Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200839","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}