- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Bank Of India And Others v. State Bank Of India Canteen Employees' Union And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The first respondent-Union sought a writ of mandamus from a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court directing the appellant-Bank to absorb all canteen workers in its various branches as Bank employees from the dates of their respective engagements. The Single Judge issued an interim order only settling a schedule for affidavits and permitting the parties to pursue the matter already pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. Dissatisfied, Respondents 1-3 appealed. The Division Bench withdrew the matter from the Single Judge, heard the writ petition and the appeal together, and ordered the Bank to treat all canteen workers as its employees. The Bank thereupon approached the Supreme Court by special leave. Meanwhile, an identical dispute between the same parties (Reference No. 2 of 1992) was and still is pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Calcutta High Court, while an identical industrial dispute was pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, was justified in entertaining the writ petition and issuing a mandamus absorbing the canteen workers.
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could record findings on sharply contested factual questions—particularly the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the comparability of the disputed canteens—with no evidentiary enquiry.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant-Bank
- Denied any employer–employee relationship with the canteen workers, contending that the canteens were not owned or run by the Bank.
- Submitted that only canteens in branches with 100 or more staff had been taken over pursuant to a bipartite settlement; the branches now in issue have far fewer employees (many with 5–10 staff) and may not require Bank-run canteens.
- Argued that these disputed factual issues ought to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, not decided summarily in writ proceedings.
Respondent-Union
The opinion does not detail the specific submissions of the Union; it merely records that it espoused the same cause both before the Tribunal and the High Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267 | Principles governing whether canteen workers can be treated as employees of an establishment. | Cited to show that such questions require detailed factual findings before the applicable legal tests can be applied. |
| Parimal Chandra Raha v. LIC of India, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 611 | Scope of absorption rights of canteen employees. | Referred to demonstrate the need for an evidentiary basis before extending employee status. |
| Associate Banks Officers' Assn. v. State Bank of India (1998) 1 SCC 428 | Further clarification of canteen employees’ status and the relevance of settlements. | Invoked to underline that tribunals are the proper forum for resolving such fact-intensive disputes. |
| M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 191 | Leading authority on the criteria for treating canteen workers as government/establishment employees. | Noted as the foundational case that was considered and explained in all the above decisions; its application also demands clear factual findings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the Union itself had triggered an industrial reference on “identical issues,” which was still pending. The appropriate course for the High Court, therefore, was either to defer to the Tribunal or to keep the writ petition in abeyance pending the Tribunal’s award.
The Division Bench nonetheless entered into disputed questions of fact—such as the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the similarity between Bank-run and privately operated canteens—without any evidentiary foundation. The Court held that Article 226 jurisdiction is ill-suited for such fact-finding, especially where a specialized tribunal is already seized of the matter.
In support of this view, the Court referred to recent decisions including Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen, Parimal Chandra Raha, and Associate Banks Officers' Assn., all of which stress that whether canteen workers are employees hinges on detailed factual evaluation informed by the principles crystallised in M.M.R. Khan.
Given these considerations, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s intervention was premature and procedurally inappropriate.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court directed the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, to expedite Reference No. 2 of 1992 and deliver its award within six months, the parties to refrain from seeking adjournments. The present appeals will be taken up after the Tribunal’s award, together with any special-leave petition that may be filed against that award.
Implications: The decision emphasizes that when an industrial dispute on the same subject-matter is already pending before a competent Tribunal, High Courts should ordinarily refrain from deciding the merits in writ proceedings, especially where disputed facts predominate. No new substantive precedent is set; instead, the Court reinforces procedural discipline and respect for the specialised fact-finding role of Industrial Tribunals.
1. Respondent 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.
2. 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 filing of affidavit.
All parties to act on signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking.”
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. We have heard extensively Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, and Mr Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents.
6. We have noticed that at the instance of the first respondent-Union, on an identical issue, a dispute was 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.
7. 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 are the 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 the 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.
8. 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 petitioners before the High Court. We are told that the matter before the Industrial Tribunal is still pending.
9. Strong reliance was placed on the recent judgments of this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Workmen (1996) 3 SCC 267, Parimal Chandra Raha v. LIC of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 611, (1995) 30 ATC 282, Associate Banks Officers' Assn. v. State Bank of India (1998) 1 SCC 428. In all these cases, the case in M.M.R Khan v. Union of India 1990 Supp SCC 191, (1991) 16 ATC 541 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.
10. In the circumstances, taking advantage of the pendency of the identical issue in Reference No. 2 of 1992 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta, instead of 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 Reference No. 2 of 1992 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.
11. These appeals will be listed after the disposal of the reference by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as aforesaid along with the SLP, if any, filed against the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.
Alert