Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE BANK OF INDIA CANTEEN EMPLOYEES’ UNION & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1998
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, A.P. MISRA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Respondents 1 to 3 herein moved a learned Single Judge
of the Calcutta High Court for the issue of a writ of
mandamus directing the appellants to forthwith absorb the
members of the first respondent-union as employees of the
appellant-bank with effect from their respective dates of
joining or within such time as the Court may deem fit and
proper and for other consequential directions.
The learned Single judge passed the following order:-
" The Court: having heard the
Learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the respondent-State Bank of
India it is directed that the
matter will come as application 3
months hence. A/O by 6 weeks and
Reply by 3 weeks thereafter.
Pendency of the petition will not
prevent the parties to proceed
before the Tribunal in the manner
mentioned in the petition. Any step
to be taken by the respondent
pursuant to the impugned settlement
will abide by the result of the
writ petition. Liberty to mention
for early hearing after filling of
affidavit.
All parties to act on a signed
copy of the minutes of this order
on the usual undertaking."
Aggrieved by the above order, respondents 1 to 3 moved
the Division Bench of that High Court and the learned
Judges of the Division Bench withdrew the case from the
learned Single Judge and heard the main case itself along
with the appeal filed against the interim order of the
learned Single Judge.
The learned Judges accepted the case of the first
respondent-union and directed the appellants to treat the
employees of the canteens of all the Branches as employees
of the bank. Aggrieved by that, the present appeals are
filed by special leave.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
We have heard extensively Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned
senior counsel for the appellants, and Mr.Anindya Mitra,
learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents.
We have noticed that at the instance of the first
respondent-union, on an identical issue, a dispute was a
raised espousing the cause of its members (workmen) and on
failure of settlement the matter was referred to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal. While the matter was
pending, respondents 1 to 3 seem to have moved the High
Court simultaneously. The appropriate way of disposing of
the matter by the High Court would have been to direct the
parties to proceed with the case before the Industrial
Tribunal and not to permit the union to simultaneously move
the High Court. Alternatively the High Court could have kept
the matter pending till the Industrial Tribunal decided the
issue by giving findings on the disputed questions of fact.
The Division Bench itself has noticed that the appellant-
bank has not accepted the material facts and still the
Division Bench, while exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, gave findings on questions
of disputed facts.
Two important aspects on which the facts seriously
disputed were that the canteen employees were not the
employees of the bank as there was no relationship of
employer and employee and there was no similarity between
the canteens in dispute and the canteens run by the bank.
The Division Bench proceeded on the assumption that the
canteen employees of the bank and the canteens run by the
bank and the canteens now in question are similar in all
respects. It appears that as a result of bipartite agreement
between the bank and employees federation (after four
stages) ultimately the Bank agreed to take over and run the
canteens where the Branch is manned by not less than 100
employees. The canteens now in question are the canteens in
the branches where the bank employees are less than 100.
According to the bank, there are 231 branches in which only
5 employees are there and in 126 branches the staff strength
was only between 6 and 10. According to the learned counsel
appearing for the bank, the question whether there was
necessity to run a canteen in those branches and other
similar questions should have been gone into by the High
Court and without deciding such factual aspect the High
Court has issued the mandamus as prayed for.
On the facts, we are of the view that the High Court
ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition when the
identical issue between the same parties was pending before
the Industrial Tribunal and that too at the instance of the
Writ petitions before the High Court. We are told that the
matter before the Industrial Tribunal is still pending.
Strong reliance was placed on the recent judgments of
this Court in Employers in Relation To The Management of
Reserve Bank of India vs. Workmen (1996 (3) SCC 267),
Parimal Chandra Raha & Others vs. Life Insurance Corporation
of India & Ors. (1995 (Supp) (2) SCC 611), Associate Banks
Officers’ Association vs. State Bank of India & Ors. (1998
(1) SCC 428. In all these cases, the case in M.M.R. Khan &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1990 (Supp) SCC 191) was
referred to, elaborately considered and explained to a
certain extent. For appreciating and applying the principles
laid down by this Court in these recent judgments, it is
absolutely necessary to have clear and elaborate findings on
facts based on materials.
In this circumstances, taking advantage of the pendency
of the identical issue in Ref. No. 2/92 before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta, instead of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
directing the parties to go before the same Tribunal in this
matter as well, to avoid delay and in the interest of both
the parties, we direct the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal to expedite the hearing of Ref. No. 2/92 and render
the Award within six months. The parties shall avoid taking
adjournments. The party, aggrieved by the Award of the
Tribunal to be passed pursuant to the direction as given
above, will be at liberty to move this Court.
These appeals will be listed after the disposal of the
Reference by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as
aforesaid alongwith the SLP, if any, filed against the Award
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.