The legitimacy of ‘lunch-hour’ demonstration as a form of protest is now a bone of contention between the Nabard (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) management and its employees.
The Nabard Employees Association, Kolkata, has contested Act for Act, verse for verse, a warning issued by the management for the holding lunch-hour demonstration at the Nabard regional office.
The notice dated May 14 said that demonstrations, including ‘mass deputation’ within office premises, are prohibited by Section 36 AD of the Banking Regulations (BR) Act, 1949.
“Any violation will be viewed seriously,” the notice warned Sagarmoy Gupta, Secretary of the Association.
“You will be liable for action as deemed fit by the bank under the relevant provisions of the Nabard (Staff) Rules, 1982.”
In its reply, the Association took very strong exception to the “content, tone, tenor of the letter.....to curtail/finish off any lawful trade union activity within the premises.”
“A careful reading of Section 36 AD of the BR Act shows such blanket prohibition of demonstration is not at all permissible. The expression ‘including mass deputation’...is totally absent from the language of the Act.”
‘Wrongly quoted’The Association dared the issuing official to produce within seven days a certified copy of the Act containing such blanket provision of prohibition of demonstration and having an explicit language like ‘mass deputation.’
It warned the official of legal implications of ‘expressly and deliberately quoting wrongly’ a very important national Act on behalf of a national institution such as Nabard to further/bolster one’s logic.
The demonstrators did not prevent any person from lawfully entering or leaving any office or place of business, it said in the letter.
The event organised during the ‘lunch hour’ did not prevent, or was calculated to prevent, transaction of normal business.
Not maintainableThe union cited Section 18(1) of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, which reads: “No suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union.... in respect of any act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.... on the ground only that such act induced some other person to break a contract of employment or interfered with the trade, business or employment of some other person or his right to dispose of capital or labour as he wills.”
It quoted the judgment in Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd vs Simson and Group Company Workers Union that slogan-shouting or demonstrations cannot be termed as unlawful nor can a blanket injunction be granted.