LAWS(CAL)-2009-12-1

BASANTA KUMAR ROY Vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED

Decided On December 24, 2009
BASANTA KUMAR ROY Appellant
V/S
IDBI BANK LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of IDBI Bank Ltd., which is a banking company within the meaning, of section 5(c) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949. At present the petitioner claims to be holding the post of Special Assistant in that bank. The petitioner is involved in trade union activities, concerning employees of the bank. He is the secretary of the Industrial Development Bank of India Employees' Association, which is a registered trade union, as well as of IDBI Bank Ltd. Contract Employees' Union. The petitioner is, also one of the secretaries of All India Industrial Development Bank Employees' Association. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner at the material point of time was posted in the Bansdroni branch of the bank. He challenges in this writ petition the legality of the action of the bank by which he is being transferred to Barasat branch of the bank. An order releaving him from the Bansdroni branch was issued on 30 October 2009, a copy of which has been made Annexure 'P7' to the writ petition. The same order specifies that he has been transferred to the Barasat branch of the Bank, and requires him to report to the Barasat branch on 31 October 2009. This memorandum has been issued by the Branch Head, Bansdroni in pursuance of an office order issued by Deputy General Manager, Human Resources of the Bank from its Mumbai office.

(2.) The petitioner's main complain is that this is a mala fide transfer issued in a vindictive manner because of his trade union activities. This order has been issued, according to the petitioner, to prevent him from carrying on his trade union activities, the hub of which in Kolkata is its main branch at Shakespeare Sarani, in the central part of the city. The petitioner attributes this order of transfer to his trade union activities which he claims brought him in conflict with the management of bank. He alleges that he had made complain to the Finance Minister of India about various luxury expenditures incurred and financial irregularities committed by the Chairman-cum- Managing Director (CMD) of the Bank. Among the alleged misdeeds is availing of a house loan of rupees one crore and twenty five lacs by the CMD, as well as purchase of luxury vehicles on bank's funds for his personal use.

(3.) Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order of transfer on the ground of mala fide. He has also argued that the order of transfer cannot be sustained as the order does not reflect same was done for administrative exigencies or in public interest.