$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 25.02.2026 Date of decision: 04.05.2026 Uploaded on: 04.05.2026 + W.P.(C) 615/2017 & CM APPL. 2792/2017 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajanog, Sr.Adv.

with Mr. Amol Sharma, Mr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Jagruti Ahuja, Mr. Sanjay Gupta & Mr. Ankita Singh, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kaoliangpou Kamei, Adv.

Mr. Zain Haider, Adv.

Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Sahra, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur & Mr.

Abhinav Verma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Standard Chartered Bank, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the decision taken by the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) in its 90^th meeting held on 04.11.2016, the minutes whereof were circulated on 30.12.2016, whereby the Board directed that the Committee constituted earlier shall proceed further and submit its report in relation to the issue of engagement of contract labour in the establishments of the Petitioner.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present petition are that the Petitioner, Standard Chartered Bank, is a foreign banking company carrying on banking operations in India through its various branches. The present dispute arises out of a complaint dated 03.10.2002 made by Respondent No.3, namely Grindlays Bank Employees’ Union, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the minority union"), before the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, alleging that the Petitioner was engaging contract labour in its branches in Mumbai in violation of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

3. Pursuant to the said complaint, the matter was taken up by the Board, which is constituted under Section 3 of the Act, and was referred to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "RLC") for conducting a field inspection. The RLC, after inspecting the premises of the Petitioner, submitted a report dated 11.03.2005, wherein it was categorically recorded that the work in question was being carried out through the Petitioner’s own subsidiaries and that there was no engagement of contract labour in violation of the Act. The report concluded that there was no merit in the reference made by the minority union.

4. The aforesaid report was placed before the Board in its 72nd meeting held on 15-16.05.2008. After deliberations and consideration of the material on record, the majority of the Board accepted the findings of the RLC and took a conscious decision that the matter did not warrant any action under the Act and accordingly directed that the case be treated as closed. The relevant extract of the minutes of the 72^nd meeting is reproduced hereinbelow:

"...majority of the Board members are of the view that since the work in Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. is being done through own subsidiaries of the said bank, this is not a fit case for proceeding under CL (R&A) Act, 1970. Hence recommended to close the case. In view of the above, the case has been treated as closed..."

5. It is not in dispute that the said decision was taken after a prolonged consideration of the issue and constituted a final determination of the complaint. A minority dissent was recorded by Dr. Vivek Monteiro/Respondent No.4, one of the Board members, who filed a note of dissent advocating the formation of an investigative committee. The majority expressly overruled this dissent and directed that the case be treated as closed.

6. Aggrieved by the closure of the matter, Respondent No.3 preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 8398 of 2008 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 06.04.2009, wherein it was recorded that the Ministry of Labour had directed the Board to recons