Ever since the publication of the appellate tribunal's award, when rumblings of growing discontent on both sides began to be heard, I have been greatly concerned on two accounts. Firstly, I have been most anxious that the state of tension which has existed in the relationship between employers and employees in the banking field during the last five or six years should relax and give place to an enduring relationship, based on goodwill and contentment. Secondly, I have been equally anxious that while the terms of final settlement of the dispute should not be such as to injure the cause of banking in the country, they should be fair to the vast number of what are known as the lowest categories of bank employees and who have put up with much trouble and expense during all these years of costly litigation. It is true that government has been given the power, under the industrial disputes (appellate tribunal) act, to accept, reject or modify the award of an industiral tribunal, if and when government is satisfied that is expedient, in the public interest, to do so. It cannot be disputed that the sadi powers should be exercised by government by government with due care and caution in exceptional circumstances, and for very strong reasons of public interest and that the modification of an award of an industrial tribunal by executive action is prima facie not desirable. I also subscribe to the views expressed by many honourable members that teh sanctity of the award whihc is in the nature of a judicial pronuncement should be respected by conventions and precedents. Honourable members haveh eard from my colleague, the finance minister, how the full burden of the appellate tribunal award might have brought about a crisis in the banking industry. In particular, he has told the house how banking facilities in rural areas might have suffered a serious setback on account of the burden.
