The petitioner was appointed as clerk on 10.3.1975 in Sangli Bank. Petitioner opted for banks pension scheme by filling option form on 20.6.2000 under which petitioner had to make contribution towards pension fund and the bank was not under an obligation to contribute. Thereafter petitioner resigned on 30.11.2001 and was paid his PF contribution and gratuity by the bank. He made several correspondences with the bank claiming banks PF contribution but in vain. Sangli Bank was amalgamated with ICICI bank in 2007. Thereafter, petitioner requested respondent No.3 to settle his dues vide letter dated 30.7.2015. In turn respondent No.3 rejected to settle the dues payable stating that petitioner being a pension optee was already paid all terminal dues on resignation. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The Bombay High Court in the case of Chanda Deepak Kochhar v ICICI Bank Ltd., Mumbai and Another reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 374 reiterated by apex court in an appeal reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 969 has held as follows:
13. ICICI is a private bank. It is administered by its Board of Directors. ICICI is not established under any statutory instrument. ICICI receives no funds from the Government. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. IDFC Bank Ltd., 2017 MhLJ Online 124 : 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 4252, in case of another private bank, Standard Chartered Bank, has held that it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. ICICI is not an Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
15. ICICI has its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. This Code of ethics governs its employees, officers and directors. The Code deals with issues such as conflicts of interest, personal investments, workplace responsibilities, duties of directors, disciplinary procedures. The appointment of the petitioner from time to time is with the resolutions of the Board of ICICI. Under the resolution appointments have been made wherein salaries, per-requisites, bonus have been fixed. The employer of the petitioner is the ICICI and the relationship between the petitioner and the ICICI Bank is governed by the contract of terms of the resolution and orders passed by the ICICI. The services of the petitioner are in terms of matter of contract of service with ICICI. In respect of the appointments, communications have been issued by the Reserve Bank under section 35-B(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act. The question is of the implications of the section 35-B(1)(b) of the Act.
3. The Apex Court observed that a writ would not lie to enforce purely private law rights. Contractual duties are enforceable as matters of private law by ordinary contractual remedies such as damages, injunction, specific performance and declaration. Before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has to satisfy that action of such authority is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law. Further it was observed that if the private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced.
4. For the petitioner, the legal implications of the payment of Banks PF contribution, or claiming pension, as the case may be, would be grounds and arguments in the contractual dispute. Thus merely because non payment of Banks PF contribution is questioned, that cannot infuse a public law element in this dispute, which remains a contractual dispute. For the contractual remedies, the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate forum and not writ jurisdiction. Since this writ petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable. ORDER
i) Writ petition is dismissed. ii) Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to agitate his claim in accordance with law. Petitioner is entitled for benefit under section 14 of Limitation Act for excluding the time spent in other proceedings. Sd/- JUDGE
Comments