Back
2000(3) Supreme 478
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
A.P. Misra & M.B. Shah, JJ.
State Bank of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 552-553 of 1994
With
Civil Appeal No. 2691 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7229 of 1999)
Decided on 17-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Shanti Bhushan, Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Advocates, Gopalratnam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, A.V. Rangam, Rana Mukherjee, Mrs. Sumita Mukherjee, Goodwill Indeevar, Jaydeep Kumar, Advocates.
Held : There is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run the canteens by the Bank. The scheme as stated above only provides for grant of subsidy, for promoting running of canteen and if some more cost is incurred in running the canteen, the members of the staff working in that particular branch are required to bear it. The Bank is not employing the canteen workers. The Bank is not supervising or controlling the work or the details regarding the canteen or its employees appointed by the Local Implementation Committee. Auditing the work of Local Implementation Committee - whether subsidy given by it is properly utilised or not, also would not be a ground for holding that Bank is having any control in running the canteen. Bank is not taking any disciplinary action or directing any canteen employee to do a particular work or for that purpose no scheme is laid down by the Bank. Not only this, the other most important aspect is the recruitment by the Bank is to be made as per the statutory rules framed by it after giving proper advertisement, test and/or interview. As against this, for appointing a canteen employee there are no rules framed by the Bank. In our view, the canteens run by the LIC in a branch having strength of less than 100 employees are non-statutory non-recognized canteens because admittedly there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of a award or contract between the employees of the Bank in running such canteens. As stated earlier, finally the 4th settlement was arrived at between All India SBI Staff Federation and the Bank which inter alia provides that Bank will take over canteens from Local Implementation Committees concerned at such offices/branches having a minimum staff strength of 100 where the canteens are still being run by the said Committees. Hence, contractual obligation is limited to that extent. For the canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees, there is no question of its recognition by the State Bank as in the case of recognised canteens in the Railways where Railway Board granted recognition to the canteens as per prescribed detail in the Railway Establishment Manual. On the contrary, the status of canteens run by the Local Implementation Committees would be non-statutory non-recognised canteens. The employees of such canteens were not under the control of the Bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by the SBI. To promote canteen facilities by providing subsidy or other facilities is altogether different from running the canteen. Running of a canteen in a small branch having staff strength less than a particular limit may not be economical, but may be a waste. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Bank that in some areas, staff strength may be less than 10. Further, the appointment of the employees by the Bank has been regulated by the State Bank of India General Regulations, which are statutory regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India with previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. In the case of canteen employees run by the LIC, the Bank does not have any control in the appointment and the aforesaid recruitment rules are not required to be observed. We, therefore, hold that employees of the canteens which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committees as per the welfare scheme framed by the SBI would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such canteens. (Paras 29, 32, 35 & 40)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-Leave granted, in SLP (Civil) No. 7229 of 1999 which is filed against the Award dated 7th October, 1998 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta in Reference No. 2 of 1992.
2. Civil Appeal Nos. 552-553 of 1994 are filed against judgment and order dated 2nd September, 1993 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Writ Application No....of 1993 decided the question - whether the employees of the canteens of some of the branches of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as SBI in short) can claim to be absorbed as employees of the State Bank of India?
3. In the said Writ Application the State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union sought the relief that the canteen employees who were ostensibly employed by the Local Implementation Committee ( LIC for short) as per the scheme framed by the SBI for providing certain amenities were in fact employees of the State Bank. It was contended that canteen facilities are meant for serving tea, meals to the employees of the bank and the salary of canteen employees are paid by the Implementation Committee from the funds created by the bank for the same. It was pointed out that SBI and SBI Staff Federation reached an agreement which is contained in the Handbook of staff welfare activities and canteen facility is one part of such welfare activities, which is looked after by the LIC for which funds are provided by the Central Board of the Bank as subsidies out of its annual profits. The High Court directed that the SBI is bound to treat them its employees in all the branches, where such canteens exist and to treat them equally as employees of the bank and not to peer at such employees through the opaque curtain of the LIC.
4. Further, the State Bank of India Employees Association (Bengal Circle) for and on behalf of employees of the canteens established in the branches of the bank on the basis of welfare scheme propounded by the bank in or about the year 1963 raised a dispute for which Government of India by order dated September 17, 1975 made a reference to the Tribunal as under:-
"Whether the demand of the workmen of the State Bank of India represented by the State Bank of India Employees Association, Bengal Circle, for treating the staff of such canteens which are run by the Local Implementation Committees, as workmen of State Bank of India for giving them the same status, pay and facilities as are available to other Class-IV employees of the Bank is justified? If so, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?"
5. The Tribunal considered that-whether canteen staff should be regarded as workmen of the Bank is a relevant or substantial dispute between the Bank and its workmen and after considering the various facts arrived at the conclusion that the canteen employees were workmen of the bank and they would be entitled to the same status, pay and other facilities as are available to other Class-IV employees of the Bank and those rights will accrue in their favour w.e.f. 1-11-1976. That award dated 30-11-1976, known as Justice Moidu Award, was challenged by filing appeal bearing Civil Appeal No. 840 of 1977 in this Court, which was admitted and the operation of the Award was stayed pending hearing and disposal of the appeal.
6. Pending appeal, on 31st October, 1977 the Bank and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation arrived at first settlement. The terms of the settlement inter alia provide that the Bank will take over from the concerned Local implementation Committees at 51 branches and offices mentioned therein, the management and running of the staff canteens and conduct the same in the manner provided in the scheme attached to the agreement. The settlement also provided that the Bank will provide the canteen staff, who will be appointed and paid by the bank instead of by way of subsidy. The agreement further provides for absorption of the canteen employees of the said 51 branches if they qualify in an interview and found physically fit in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
