{"id":58698,"date":"1996-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996"},"modified":"2015-09-21T07:12:14","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T01:42:14","slug":"standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996","title":{"rendered":"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 61 (1996) DLT 799, (1996) IILLJ 52 Del<\/div>\n
Author: S Pandit<\/div>\n
Bench: S Pandit<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT  <\/p>\n
 S.D. Pandit, J.  <\/p>\n
 (1) -THESE three applications aremter-connected. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Suit No. 2551\/95 is brought by the plaintiff Standard Chartered Bank against in all five defendants. Defendant No. 1, Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union is the Union of the employees of the plaintiff Bank whereas defendants 2 to 5 are its office-bearers. Out of these office bearers defendant No. 4 was working in the Loan Centre Unit of the plaintiff’s branch at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi and by letter dated 1.11.1995 he has been transferred to Darya Ganj Branch and the said order was served on the defendant No. 4 on 2.1 11 995. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 3.11.1995 the defendants and its members started shouting pitched slogans against the management using filthy language for its officers and created unruly scenes, thumped the tables and caused hindrance to the officers in discharging their duties and also obstructing the customers. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants have also extended threats of physical violence to the officers of the plaintiff Bank and they have resorted to illegal strike. They had also made it known to the plaintiff that they would intensify and would instigate and resort to more violent activities and hold demonstrations, gheraos, dharnas, strike and obstruct ingress and egress of the plaintiff officers, willing employees as well as the customers. All these things are being committed in order to put pressure on the plaintiff and to coerce the plaintiff to withdraw the transfer order. Plaintiff has, therefore, filed the present suit to get a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain defendants and its employees from instigating and abetting other employees and to resort to strike, holding of demonstrations, shouting slogans, resorting to dhamas, gheraos and putting up loudspeakers within the radius of 500 metres on all the sides of the plaintiff’s branch at 17, Parliament Street, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Alongwith the suit plaintiff has filed interim application, viz. IA. 1240\/95 seeking ad-interim injunction and this Court was pleased to pass ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction with a show-cause notice as to why the ad-interim injunction issued against them should not be made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
(4) In pursuance of the said show-cause notice the defendants have put in appearance. They have filed their objections to the interim application. They have also filed written statement to the main suit and they have filed another application, IA. 11567\/95 under Order Xxxix, Rule 4 to vacate the order of ad-interim injunction.\n<\/p>\n
(5) It is contended by the defendants that the transfer of defendant No. 4 by the plaintiff is contrary to the provisions of Sastri Award, which is binding against the plaintiff. They further contended that they have never given any threats of causing physical violence and they had only done peaceful demonstration and that too out of the Bank building. They contended that the plaintiff has misled the Court by making false allegations against them and has obtained ex-parte order of ad interim injunction. They further contended that it is their fundamental right to go on strike and that there cannot be any order of injunction against them from proceeding on strike. They contended that they never intended to obstruct the working of the plaintiff Bank when they themselves are the employees of the same. They had never tried to instigate any worker or had threatened any officer of the plaintiff or had obstructed any customer coming to the Bank. Therefore, in these circumstances, they seek the vacation of the ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction.\n<\/p>\n
(6) Thus, in view of the controversy between the parties, I have to consider the question as to whether the defendants have got the right to go on strike and whether there could be any order of injunction against the defendants. It is the contention of the defendants that the transfer of defendant No. 4 is contrary to the provisions of Sastry Award. There is no dispute over the fact that Sastry Award is binding against the plaintiff as well as the defendants. Defendants are relying on the following observations in the Sastry Award :    (1) Every registered Bank employees union from time-to-time, shall furnish the Bank with the names of the President, Vice-President and the Secretaries of the union; (2) Except in very special cases, whenever the transfer of any of the above- mentioned officer bearers is contemplated, at least five clear working days’ notice should be put up on the notice boards of the Bank of such contemplated action; (3) Any representations, written or oral, made by the union shall be considered by the Bank; (4) If any order of transfer is ultimately made, a record shall be made by the Bank of such representations and the Bank’s reasons for regarding them as inadequate; and (5) The decision shall be communicated to the union as well as to employee concerned.\n<\/p>\n
(7) It is an admitted fact that defendant No. 4 has been transferred from one office to another office of the plaintiff and it is also an admitted fact that the procedure laid down by Sastry Award was not followed before issuing the said transfer order. It is not at all necessary for me to go into the question as to whether the transfer of defendant No. 4 is contemplated by the above-quoted provisions of Sastry Award because to make any observations in respect of this would amount to deciding the main suit substantially and the controversy between the parties could be decided without recording even any prima facie finding regarding the said controversy. Assuming for the sake of convenience the contention of the defendants that the transfer of defendant No. 4 is contrary to the provisions of Sastry Award whether they are entitled to go on strike or not will have to be considered. Learned Counsel for the defendants has referred to the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and contended that if at all the plaintiff was aggrieved by their activities they ought to have approached the Government and the Government ought to have referred the industrial dispute to a Competent Authority and while making such a reference the Government is to pass an order prohibiting continuance of any strike or lockout. But the plaintiff cannot come before the Court and get the relief because it is the fundamental right of a worker to go on strike. No doubt in view of the provisions of Article 19 citizens have freedom of speech, freedom to form association or union but that does not mean they can exercise the said right at any public place they please to exercise the same. According to learned Counsel for the defendants, employees are entitled to have demonstration to get their grievances redressed but it must be remembered that they have no right to indulge in undignified activities in the office premises of the employer and interfere in the working of the Company, (see Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, Air<\/a> 1969 Sc 66.\n<\/p>\n
(8) In support of his contention learned Counsel for the defendants has cited before me the case of B.R. Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., . He has put reliance on the following observations on page 270:    “The right to form associations or unions is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Section 8 of the Trade Unions Act provides for registration of a trade union if all the requirements of the said enactment are fulfillled. The right to form associations and unions and provide for their registration was recognised obviously for conferring certain rights on trade unions. The necessity to form unions is obviously for voicing the demands and grievances of labour. Trade unionists act as mouthpieces of labour. The strength of a trade union depends on its membership. Therefore, trade unions with sufficient membership strength are able to bargain more effectively with the managements. This bargaining power would be considerably reduced if it is not permitted to demonstrate. Strike in a given situation is only a form of demonstration. There are different modes of demonstrations e.g. go-slow, sit-in, work-to-rule, absentism, etc., and strike is one such mode of demonstration by workers for their rights. The right to demonstrate and, therefore, the right to strike is an important weapon in the armoury of the workers. This right has been recognised by almost all democratic countries. Though not raised to the high pedestal of a fundamental right, it is recognised as a mode of redress for resolving the grievances of workers.”\n<\/p>\n
But in the same very para on page 270 it has been observed as under :    \"BUT the right to strike is not absolute under our industrial jurisprudence and restrictions have been placed on it. These are to be found in Sections 10(3), 10A(4A), 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('ID. Act' for short). Section 10(3) empowers the appropriate Government to prohibit the continuance of a strike if it is in connection with a dispute referred to one of the foray created under the said statute. Section 10A(4A) confers similar power on the appropriate Government where the industrial dispute which is the cause of the strike is referred to Arbitration and a notification in that behalf is issued under Section 10(3A).\"   \n\n(9) Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down that no person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract without giving the employer a notice within six weeks before striking and within 14 days of giving of such notice. The Central Government had issued a notification under Section 2(n)(vi) by which the Banking institutes are mentioned as one of the specified industries of public utility.   \n\n<\/pre>\n
(10) Apart from this, even assuming that they are entitled to go on strike they cannot exercise the said right so as to cause nuisance to the employer. Their right to go on strike is not unlimited. As the Indian citizens when they want to exercise their fundamental right to form a union and to have demonstrations for the redressal of their grievances, they have got to remember that they have also got a reciprocal duty so as not to cause nuisance or mental or physical danger to their employers and others. As the employer can move the Government and the Government can refer the disputes to the Industrial Court, it is equally open for defendant No. 4 to approach the Labour Court to challenge his transfer.He as well as defendant No. 1.cannot take the law in their hands and behave and act in such a manner so as to cause nuisance to others. No doubt it is their contention that the transfer of defendant No. 4 is illegal and, therefore, they are entitled to go on strike but for that purpose they must follow the procedure laid down by Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act and after following the said procedure they can exercise their right to go on strike by bearing in mind that they cannot cause nuisance to the plaintiff or others.\n<\/p>\n
(11) Learned Counsel for the defendant contended that when they are entitled to go on strike they are entitled to have posters and banners as well as demonstrations. But they cannot have the demonstrations, dharnas or sticking of posters and tying of banners within the premises of their employer. They can have peaceful demonstrations out of the premises of the employer. They can, after following the procedure under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, use black strips or other modes of showing their displeasure and for being on strike. They can put up banners or posters which are not obscene or obnoxious but that too not within the building of their employer.\n<\/p>\n
(12) By IA. 46\/96 the plaintiffs are seeking an order of ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing and circulating or displaying any pamphlets or any other material within the plaintiff’s premises as well as carrying on themselves mouth masks, caps, any placards, badges and\/or any improper apparel or to participate, organise or to sit on relay hunger strike. I have made it quite clear in my earlier discussion that before going on strike the defendants will have to comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of Industrial Disputes Act. There could not be any injunction in absolute manner preventing them from going on strike. If they happen to comply with Sub-section (1) of Section 22 then they are entitled to go on strike and as the strike is their fundamental right this Court cannot restrain them from exercising the same. Similarly, the using of badges or putting mask on the mouth or wearing some caps indicating that they are going on strike if they happen to fulfill the provisions of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court cannot restrain them from doing so. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of B.R. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (supra) that strike is a form of demonstration against the activities of the employer and go-slow, sit-in, work-to rule, absenteeism are the modes of demonstrations and the workers have got right to make such demonstrations. Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff in Ia 46\/96 could not be absolutely allowed. I have made it quite clear in my earlier discussion that they cannot make use of the premises of the plaintiff for displaying their banners, pamphlets or hand-bills but they cannot be prevented from making use of the same out of the premises of the plaintiff. If there happened to be any defamatory or obscene banners or pamphlets the plaintiffs have got the proper remedy under the law taking action for the same but Court cannot pass an order in anticipation of commission of such acts.\n<\/p>\n
(13) Therefore, in view of the above discussion I hold that IA. 46\/96 shall stand partly allowed and the order passed in IA. 11420\/95 will stand modified in the following terms:    “Defendants 1 to 5 and their employees, members, office-bearers and agents are restrained by ad-interim injunction from instigating and abetting other employees other than the members of defendant No. 1 to resort to strike. Defendants 1 to 5, their employees, members, officers-bearers and agents are hereby further restrained by an ad-interim injunction from resorting to strike unless they comply with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, their employees, members, office-bearers and agents are hereby further restrained by an ad-interim injunction from holding any demonstrations in front of the office building or adjoining office building within an area of 50 sq. metres around the building by putting up loudspeakers between office hours. However, it is made quite clear that they can hold peaceful demonstrations if they happen to proceed on strike or they intend to proceed on strike during lunch hours and before and after office hours of the plaintiff Bank in the parking area adjoining Bank of Baroda and in front of Dlf building without causing obstruction to public at large. Defendants 1 to 5, their employees, members, office-bearers and agents are hereby further restrained from pasting or putting up any pamphlets and banners on any walls or in the building of the plaintiff Bank. Defendants 1 to 5, their employees, members, office-bearers and agents are further restrained from raising slogans or preventing ingress and egress of any officer bearer, members of the staff and customers of the plaintiff Bank. The prayer of the plaintiff to restrain the defendants, its employees, members, office-bearers and agents from putting up badges or mouth-masks or cards on their clothes or wearing caps stands rejected. All the three applications stand disposed of accordingly. Applications disposed of.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996 Equivalent citations: 61 (1996) DLT 799, (1996) IILLJ 52 Del Author: S Pandit Bench: S Pandit JUDGMENT S.D. Pandit, J. (1) -THESE three applications aremter-connected. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Suit No. 2551\/95 […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nStandard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union ... on 1 February, 1996 - 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\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union ... on 1 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-21T01:42:14+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-21T01:42:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2407,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\",\"name\":\"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union ... on 1 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-21T01:42:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union ... on 1 February, 1996 - 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\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union ... on 1 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-21T01:42:14+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996","datePublished":"1996-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-21T01:42:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996"},"wordCount":2407,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996","name":"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union ... on 1 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-21T01:42:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/standard-chartered-bank-vs-chartered-bank-employees-union-on-1-february-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Standard Chartered Bank vs Chartered Bank Employees Union … on 1 February, 1996"}]},{"@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\/58698","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=58698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}