Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 618
MR. S.S.NIJJAR, CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE A.K. BASU
Standard Chartered Bank Pensioner’S Association And Ors.
VERSUS
Standard Chartered Bank Officers’ Pension Fund And Ors.
F.M.A. No. 512 of 2005 & M.A.T. No. 89 of 2004
DECIDED ON : 14-8-2007
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private company unless there is a statutory duty created by a specific statute. In the absence of a statutory duty, alternative remedies such as a civil suit may be available.
Headnote:
Writ Petition Maintainability - Statutory Duty - Industrial Disputes Act - Civil Suit - Standard Chartered Bank Pensioner's Association v. Standard Chartered Bank
Fact of the Case:
Standard Chartered Bank Pensioner's Association and others challenged the dismissal of their writ petition against Standard Chartered Bank by the Single Judge. The petitioners claimed entitlement to pension under various awards, settlements, and industry-wise settlement of 1993. They alleged non-restoration of the commuted portion of the pension after 15 years, discrimination in pension rates compared to erstwhile Grindlays Bank employees, and sought directions to the Reserve Bank of India to consider their representation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that a writ petition against a private company like Standard Chartered Bank is generally not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there is a statutory duty created by a statutory provision. The petitioners' claim arose from a contractual settlement and Trust Rules, which did not provide for restoration of commuted pension after 15 years. The Court observed that the petitioners could still pursue a civil suit for their claims.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a private company like Standard Chartered Bank? 2. Whether the petitioners' claim for restoration of commuted pension after 15 years is enforceable through a writ petition? 3. Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, which held that private companies are not normally amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unless there is a statutory duty imposed by a specific statute. 2. The Court found that the petitioners' claim arose from a contractual settlement and Trust Rules, which did not create a statutory duty enforceable through a writ petition. 3. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, which held that where a dispute arises from the general law of contract, a civil suit is an appropriate remedy even if it also constitutes an industrial dispute.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision that the writ petition was not maintainable. It clarified that the petitioners were not without remedy and could pursue their claims through a civil suit.
S.S. Nijjar, C.J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the Standard Chartered Bank Pensioner’s Association and Ors. against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4th December, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 16553 (W) of 2003. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge as not being tenable against the Standard Chartered Bank. At the same time directions have been issued to the Reserve Bank of India to consider the representation made by the petitioners in accordance with law and to dispose of the same preferably within a period of
four months from the date of the communication of a copy of the judgment and order.
2. The petitioners had filed the writ petition with the allegations that under the conditions of service, the employees of the Bank are entitled to pension by virtue of various awards and settlements prevailing in the Bank. The right to get the pension stands further corroborated and established by industry-wise settlement made by and between 58 Banks and their workmen on 29th October, 1993. The respondent No. 1, Bank, was a party to the aforesaid settlement being a member of the Indian Bank’s association.
3. The settlement dated 29th October, 1993 provides that the pension, as a second retiral benefit scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund, shall be available to certain categories of employees/retired employees mentioned therein from 1st of November, 1993 or the date of retirement whichever is later. The settlement, inter alia, provides as under:
A pensioner will be entitled to commute one-third of the basic pension.
Dearness relief, will, however, be allowed on full basic pension even after commutation.
The terms and conditions thereof shall continue to govern and bind the parties until the settlement is terminated by either party giving the other statutory notice as prescribed in law at the material time.
4. To implement the aforesaid settlement, the Bank Employee (Pension)Regulations, 1993, were framed.
5. Under these regulations it is provided that the commuted portion of the pension will be restored after 15 years from the date of commutation. The aforesaid Regulations are binding on the respondent, Bank. These Regulations have been framed on similar lines as the Reserve Bank of India’s Pension Regulations and the Central Government Civil Service Pension Rules, with suitable modification in relation to their applicability to Banking industry. The settlement dated 29.10.93 has been implemented by the 58 Banks who are parties thereto, excepting Standard Chartered Bank. The petitioner further claimed that prior to 29th October, 1993, the Bank had a pension scheme for its retired employees. Under the settlement dated 29th October, 1993, the Bank issued notice to the retired employees whether they will opt for industry-wise pension scheme or continue with the prevailing scheme of the Bank. The notice was issued on 6th March, 1996. On receiving the notice the retired employees at Kolkata opted for the industry-wise settlement. Thereafter, the management of the Bank by letter dated 11th April, 1997 purported to withdraw option earlier given to the employees. The retired employees of the Bank finding no alternative and even after waiting for long time had to accept the meagre increase in the pension amount on condition that the option for industry-wise pension must be withdrawn by the employees or else their payment will be held up.
6. It is further the case of the petitioners that under a Trust Deed dated23rd October, 1978 a Trust was created to administer a pension fund of the employees of the respondent/Bank. This fund is known as the Standard Chartered Bank Officers’ Pension Fund. The disbursement of the pension to the retired employees has been made by the Bank through the trustees of the pension fund. Recently the Bank started saying pension through Life Insurance Corporation of India to the employees who retired by way of Voluntarily Retirement Scheme or early separation scheme.
7. It is
