IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI Writ Petition Nos.11010-11011 of 2018 (L-RES) BETWEEN :
STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ UNION (SBM) REG. CENTRAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.9991, 644/645, AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MILIND KATTI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND :
1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF INDIA, SBI CORPORATE OFFICE, STATE BANK BHAWAN, 16TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400 021.
3. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARK’S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & CDO STATE BANK OF INDIA, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, LHO CAMPUS,65, ST.MARKS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
(BY SRI L. HARISH KUMAR, C.G.C. FOR R1;
... RESPONDENTS SRI M. NAGAPRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 & R3 – SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 30.12.2017 BEARING NO.HR/IR:2299 ANNEXURE-M AND 07.02.2018 BEARING NO. HR/IR:2654 ANNEXURE-N ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has sought for the following prayer :
a. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 30.12.2017 bearing No.HR/IR:2299 Annexure-M and 07.02.2018 bearing No.HR/IR:2654 Annexure-N issued by the respondent No.4;
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to extend the facility of check-off to the petitioner as provided earlier;
c. Award costs of this proceedings;
d. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Petitioner is State Bank of India Employees’ Union (State Bank of Mysore) [for short, “Employees’ Union”]. Petitioner’s Union was established and registered under the provisions of the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and it was recognized by the Management with effect from 09.01.1961. Government of India has evolved a policy decision to amalgamate all subsidiary Banks as Associate Banks. To that effect it was notified in the Gazette on 22.02.2017, whereby the then State Bank of Mysore was amalgamated with the State Bank of India. In this background, State Bank of India took a decision relating to check-off facility to State Bank of India Employees’ Union, the then State Bank of Mysore Union do not have check-off facility to other than the permanent employees.
3. Petitioner – Union has questioned the validity of the communication of the State Bank of India dated 30.12.2017 and 07.02.2018 (Annexures-M and N) respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that petitioner’s Union are prepared to give an Undertaking that check-off facility shall not be extended to daily wage/temporary employees of the petitioner’s Union. It was also contended that settlement between the Union and Management is binding on the respondent - State Bank of India.
5. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from clause 7 and 11 of the order dated 22.02.2017 relating to amalgamation of subsidiary Banks as Associate Banks.
6. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999)2 SCC 687, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. KSRTC Staff & Workers’ Federation and Another.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that settlement entered into by the petitioner Union and the then State Bank of Mysore is not binding on the State Bank of India so as to the terms and conditions stipulated in the settlement. It was also contended that in the order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure-D) there is no clause relating to check-off facility in respect of temporary and daily wages are to be extended. Clause 11 relates to any other funds of Transferor Bank. check-off facility is not part and parcel of any funds so as to invoke any other funds of Transferor Bank. As long as order dated 22.02.2017 Annexure-D do not contain with settlement between the petitioner Union and the then State Bank of Mysore is not binding on the State Bank of India. The cited decision has no application to the facts of the present case.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Question for consideration in the present petition is :
“Whether petitioner’s Union consisting of daily wagers or temporary employees are entitled to have the benefit of check-off facility from the respondent State Bank of India or not?”
10. The undisputed facts are that petitioner’s Union entered into agreement with the then State Bank of Mysore. Amalgamation of all subsidiary Banks as Associate Banks dated 22.02.2017 do not provide for binding of settlement between the petitioner’s Union and State bank of Mysore and the State Bank of India so as to extend the benefit of check-off facility to such of those daily wagers/temporary employees. In other words, settlement between the petitioner Union and the then State Bank of Mysore is not binding on the State Bank of India. Clause 11 reads as under :
“11. The Provident Fund or the Gratuity Fund or the Pension Fund or any other funds of Transferor Bank and any other bodies created, established or constituted, as the case may be, for the officers or other employees shall continue with the Transferee Bank and any income tax or other tax exemption granted to the Provident Fund or the Gratuity Fund or the Pension Fund or any other funds, if any, shall continue to be applied to the Transferee Bank.”
11. The contention of the petitioner check-off facility would fall under clause 11 is hereby rejected for the reason that what has been stated is, ‘any other funds of Transferor Bank’ ; check-off facility is not part and parcel of any fund of Transferor Bank. Hence, clause 11 has no application. Even the cited decision has no application to the petitioner’s case, for the reason that in the amalgamation order dated 22.02.2017 there is no binding of settlement on the State Bank of India. The cited decision depends on the facts of the case on hand. Undisputedly, there is no clause relating to binding of settlement between the then State Bank of Mysore and the petitioner so as to bind the State Bank of India. Accordingly, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the Annexures-M and N. Writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE hnm