✦ High Court of India · 24 Jan 2024

BY AD v. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS

Case Details High Court of India · 24 Jan 2024

ALL INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (AIBEA), (REGISTERED 3228/87), CENTRAL OFFICE, TKV SMARAKAM, P.B. NO.157, PULIMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.S. KRISHNA, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. SRI. K. SUBRAHMANIA IYER. R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RASMECC, PALAKKAD. P. RAJAN, SPECIAL ASSOCIATE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HIGH COURT BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021. DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI- 400021. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR), STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTRE, STATE BANK BHAVAN, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI-400021. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.) SRI.AMAL GEORGE, SC, SBI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 24.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 2285 OF 2019 Amit Rawal,J. 2 JUDGMENT Present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the following claim of the petitioners has been declined. i. Declare that in para 7 and 8 of acquisition of State Bank of Bikanir & Jaipur, State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Mysore, State Bank of Patiala and State Bank of Travancore contained in Ext.Pl as illegal. arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and Ar. 16 of Constitution of India. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to afford the benefit of contributory provident fund with interest to the erstwhile employees of State Bank of Travancore including petitioners 2 and 3 from the date of their joining service of State Bank of Travancore as is done in Ext.Pl to the other subsidiary banks within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. Petitioner is alleged to be the employees of the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore having a strength of 15000 employees. Vide gazette notification dated 22.2.2017, Ext.P2 containing certain terms and conditions was merged to the State Bank of India. An option was given, which was exercised by the employees. Thereafter, the employees volteface and claimed the parity viz-a-viz the benefits given to the employees of the Sate Bank of Indore, particularly, the benefit of EPF. In that regard, representation Exts.P4 and P5 was submitted but of no avail leading to filing of the writ petition for the Single Bench.

3. The stand of the respondent before the Single Bench was that the terms and conditions of the merger with respect to the associate WA NO. 2285 OF 2019 3 banks ie., Sate Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Indore was different, for, there were only 1600 employees whereas of the Travancore, there were 15000 employees. After having exercised the option are estopped to allege discrimination viz-a-viz the employees of State Bank of Indore. The learned Single Bench noticing all this fact has rightly declined the claim.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Ext.P2 order of merger dated 22.2.2017 containing the service conditions of the employees. The same reads thus:

7. Every permanent and regular officer or other permanent and regular employee of the Transferor Bank (except the Board of Directors and Executive Trustees) and officers or employees on probation, serving in the employment of the Transferor Bank immediately before the effective date shall become, as from the effective date, an officer or, as the case may be, employee of the Transferee Bank and shall hold his office or service therein in the Transferee Bank on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Central Board of the Transferee Bank and shall continue to work in accordance therewith: Provided that the pay and allowances offered to the employees or officers of the Transferor Bank shall not be less than the overall pay and allowances as they would have drawn in the Transferor Bank.

8. The permanent and regular officers or permanent and regular employees of the Transferor Bank shall be given offer of employment in writing (hereinafter referred to as the option letter) by the Transferre Bank after the issuance of this order and where an officer or other employee of the Transferor Bank does not exercise any option, within a period of fifteen days from the date of the option letter given for exercising the option, to be in the employment of the Transferee Bank, such officer or employee shall be deemed to have accepted to continue in the service of the Transferee Bank.

9. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or in any other law for the time being in force, the transfer of the services of any officers or other employees of the Transferor Bank to the Transferee Bank shall not entitle such officers or other employees to any compensation under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law for the time being in WA NO. 2285 OF 2019 4 force and no such claim shall be entertained by any court, tribunal or any other authority,

10. The officers or other employees who have retired before the effective date from the service of the Transferor Bank or opted not to join in the service of the Transferee Bank on and from the effective date and entitled to any benefits, rights or privileges from Transferor Bank shall be entitled to receive such benefits, rights or privileges from the Transferee Bank Provided that any officers or employees of the Transferor Bank who opt not to join the service of the Transferee Bank on and from the effective date shall not be entitled to notice or compensation, whether for retrenchment or otherwise (including for loss of office or employment or premature termination of his contract of employment with the Transferor Bank).

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. 12 Notwithstanding anything contained in the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) or the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (35 of 1959) or any other law for the time being in force or the regulations of the Transferor Bank or the Transferee Bank, the Chairman, the Trustees, Executive Trustees or any other person entitled to manage the whole or substantial part of the business and the affairs of the Transferor Bank shall not be entitled to any compensation against the Transferor Bank or Transferee Bank, as the case may be, for the loss of office or for the premature termination of any contract of employment entered into by him with the Transferor Bank.

13. The Transferee Bank, either through its Central Board or its Executive Committee, may give such directions as they may consider necessary to settle any questions or difficulty arising in relation to the meaning or interpretation of this Scheme, for due and complete implementation thereof, for removing any difficulties as may arise in the course of implementation of this Order and other matters connected therewith.

5. The Single Bench or we have not been apprised of the terms and conditions of the merger pertaining to the employees of the Bank of Indore and Bank of Saurashtra to claim parity. In the absence of the same, court has been prevented from taking a call on the alleged WA NO. 2285 OF 2019 5 discrimination. The merger in respect of Bank of Indore and Bank of Saurashtra was in 2008 and 2011 whereas Travancore Bank was in

2017. We are of the view that the finding of the learned Single Bench declining the case in the absence of any material on record with regard to the alleged discrimination do no suffer from any illegality or perversity. No ground for interference is made out. Writ appeal is dismissed. SD/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE SD/- C.S. SUDHA JUDGE

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments