Back
1993 Supreme(Cal) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Umesh Chandra Banerjee and Kalyanmoy Ganguly, JJ.
State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union (Bengal Circle) & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Bank of India & Ors. - Respondents
Appeal No. …. of 1993 & Matter No. …. of 1993
Decided on : September 2, 1993
Mr. Anindya Mitra, Borin Ghosh and Joydip Kar …for the Appellants
Dr. Manatosh Mukhajee and Mr. Subrata Basu for the Respondents
The right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits the arbitrary treatment of persons similarly circumstanced.
Headnote:
LABOUR LAW - CANTEEN EMPLOYEES - EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA - WHETHER CANTEEN EMPLOYEES ARE EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION OF STAFF WELFARE HANDBOOK - APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a registered trade union and its office bearers, challenged the State Bank of India's (SBI) practice of treating canteen employees at some branches as bank employees while treating canteen employees at other branches as employees of Local Implementation Committees (LICs). The SBI provided canteen facilities to its employees through LICs formed at various branches. The LICs were funded by the SBI and managed by bank employees. The canteen employees were paid wages from the LIC funds, which were supplemented by subsidies from the SBI.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the canteen employees were in fact employees of the SBI, regardless of whether they were treated as such by the bank. The court found that the SBI had economic control over the canteen employees and that their livelihood depended on the bank's business. The court also found that the SBI's practice of treating canteen employees differently at different branches was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the canteen employees were employees of the SBI. 2. Whether the SBI's practice of treating canteen employees differently at different branches was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The test for determining whether a person is an employee is whether they labor to produce goods or services for the business of another and whether their livelihood substantially depends on that labor. * The presence of intermediate contractors or the absence of a direct relationship between the worker and the business does not negate the employer-employee relationship if the business has economic control over the worker. * The right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India prohibits the arbitrary treatment of persons similarly circumstanced.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and the appeal, holding that the SBI was bound to treat the employees of all the canteens equally and to treat them as employees of the bank.
Ganguly, J.:
The instant appeal is directed against an order passed on June 3, 1993 by a learned single Judge in the connected writ petition. This court after hearing the application for stay in connection with the appeal, by consent of parties, decide to hear out the main writ petition in matter No.......... of 1993 as otherwise there will be a duplication of hearing of the said matter once of the interlocutory stage and once of the final hearing. Furthermore, this appeal is directed against an order not granting interim order and the appellants/petitioners pray for an interim order pending the disposal of the writ petition. That is why it was decided by consent of parties, to hearout the main writ petition once for all.
2. The subject-matter of the writ petition, bereft of verbiage can be put in a short compass namely, as to whether the employees of the canteens of some of the branches or State Bank of India can claim to be observed as employees of the State Bank of India
3. Before going into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties we cannot resist the temptation to quote an observation made by Bose, J. (Vivian) in the case of (1) Seksaria Colton Mills Ltd. v. The State of Bombay reported in AIR 1953 SC 278. In paragraph 23 of the aforesaid judgment His Lordship observed as follows :-
"Here is an order which is to affect the business of hundreds of persons, many of whom are small petty merchants and traders, the sort of men who would not have lawyers constantly at their elbow; and even if they did, the more learned their advisers were in the law the more puzzled they would be as to what advice to give, for it is not till one is learned in the law that subtleties of thought and bewilderment arise at the meaning of plain English words which any ordinary man of average intelligence, not versed in the law, would have no difficulty in understanding."
4. We are also tempted to quote another passage of Harman, L. J. in the case of (1) Duple Motor Bodies v. I.R.C. reported in (1960) WLR 510 at 516 to the effect that:-
An English law suit is not a moot or a debate, but an attempt to arrive at a result on the facts before the court : broad academic arguments are quite unsuited to the process of English law."
5. What is true of an English law suit is equally true in respect of a writ proceeding because the Indian Legal System or jurisprudence as it is sometimes called takes a pride in shinning in the pallor of reflected glory of the English law although in the third world countries the courts have made tremendors progress in the field of service jurisprudence having been emancipated from rigours of the conservative law of England.
6. The petitioner No.1 is a registered trade union and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the office bearers of the petitioner No. 1. The members of the petitioner No. 1 are the canteen employees employed in various canteens run by the State Bank of India through the Circle Welfare Committees at its various branches in Bengal Circle. The petitioner No.2 is working for gain in State Bank of India.
7. The petitioners state that the admitted fact is that the State Bank of India provides canteen service and/or facilities to its regular employees by running various canteens at its various branches.
8. For the purpose of providing such canteen facilities along with various other welfare facilities to its employees, the respondent bank introduced a scheme in the year 1963. Such scheme is known as 'Hand Book on Staff Welfare Activities'.
9. From the said scheme, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition marked with the letter 'A', it appears that there is a staff welfare fund sanctioned by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank and such funds, to the extent utilised, are drawn from the charges account of the bank at the end of the year and the funds are the property of the bank earmarked for providing amenities to the staff and for carrying out welfare activities for the employees
