PANCHU MONDAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the employees of the canteen of the Central Bank of India. They claimed to be absorbed on the principle as enunciated in the case of Parimal Chandra Raha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1666 : 1995 Suppl (2) SCC 611 : 1995-II-LLJ-339. Drawing inspiration from the decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers Union, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1508: 2000 (4) SCC 245 : 2000-I-LLJ-1618 it is contended that the petitioners are similarly situated with the Canteen Workers involved in the said case, and as such should be granted the same benefit of absorption. He elaborately submits and points out various materials before this Court, in order to come to conclusion that the provisions for canteen is a part of the conditions of service and as such the employees are the workmen of the Bank concerned. He sought to distinguish the decision in the case State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union v. State Bank of India in AIR 2000 SC 1518 : 2000 (5) SCC 531 : 2000-I- LLJ-1441. Case of the Respondents:

(2.) The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, points out that there is nothing to show that the petitioners are working in the canteen from the materials produced along with the writ petition. It is only when it was so pointed out in the opposition, in reply some documents have been produced. The petitioners' claim is to be decided on the basis of the writ petition, in view of the reason that the respondents had no opportunity to controvert the documents disclosed in the reply. He further contends that there is nothing to show that canteen facility was agreed to be provided for by the Bank and that it was a part of the conditions of service. He has also sought to make a distinction so far as the decision in Indian Overseas Bank (supra) is concerned, on the ground that Indian Overseas Bank had entered into an agreement for providing canteen facilities, whereas the present Bank is permitting canteen facilities as part of its welfare activities and as such it was neither statutory obligation nor implicit or explicit non-statutory obligation to provide canteen facilities. Therefore, the decision in Indian Overseas Bank (supra) would not be attracted. On the other hand, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case the decision in State Bank of India (supra) would be attracted. Even then on the materials on record, it cannot conclusively be decided that the obligation is explicit or implicit non-statutory obligation. He contends that there is nothing to show that the obligation is a statutory one. As such the question being a disputed question of fact, this Court cannot decide the same. At best it can be agitated in appropriate proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, this writ petition should fail. Reply by Petitioners:

(3.) In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the State Bank of India is constituted under a different statute, whereas the Indian Overseas Bank and Central Bank of India are constituted by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and as such stands at par, with the present Bank. He had also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in respect of the Central Bank wherein this very question has since been referred to the Tribunal and if this Court feels, in that event, it may also do so.