ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 15-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS 
ASSOCIATION 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 15, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law-Parity in Employment-Equal pay for equal work-
State Bank of India and its Subsidiary Banks-Claim for parity in terminal C 
benefits, medical benefits and extra increments-Subsidiary Banks, held on 
facts, are not in comparable position.with the SB/ nor the employees of the 
Subsidiary Banks deemed to be employees of SB/-Cautious approach to be 
adopted while applying the principle-Employees of the Subsidiary Banks 
of SB/ receiving certain benefits by way of negotiated settlement with the 
management-Hence, suf!sequent claim for parity with their counterparts in D 
SB/, held not sustainab/e-Co_nstitution of India, Articles 14, 16 and. 
39(d)-State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) 1ct, 1959, Sec. 50(2). 
The Petitioner-Association was of the officers of the Subsidiary Banks 
of the State Bank of India (SBI). Though there was parity in pay scales, the · 
Petitioner claimed terminal benefits, medical benefits and extra increments E 
on par with the employees holding equivalent or similar ranks in the SBI. 
SBI in its counter affidavit pointed out that Subsidiary Bank is an 
independent Bank and Section 50(2) of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary 
Banks) Act, 1959, also clearly provides that the officers and the employees F 
of the Subsidiary Banks cannot be considered as the officers and the employees 
of the State Bank of India for any purposes. 
It was contended by the petitioner-Association that since Subsidiary 
Banks share a common Chairman of its Board of Directors with the SBI, and 
since SBI has the power to nominate five Directors to the Subsidiary Banks, G 
the Subsidiary Banks in fact, are part of the SBI. In the alternative, it was 
contended that the Subsidiary Banks are under the control of SBI. Hence, 
the employees of the Subsidiary Banks are entitled to claim the same benefits 
as the employees of the SBI. 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
475 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. In view of clear provisions of section 50 of the Act, it is not 
possible-to come to a conclusion that the employees of the subsidiary banks 
are, for all practical purposes, employees of SBI. Even dehors section 50, 
looking to the scheme of the Act, it is clear that each of the Subsidiary Bank 
is set up as separate bank. Each Subsidiary Bank has its own capital 
B structure, its own operations. Each of the Banks has its own staff with its 
own terms and conditions of service. Therefore, the employees of the 
Subsidiary Banks cannot be treated as employees of the SBI. The employees 
of the Subsidiary Banks are not entitled to claim the same benefits as the 
employees ofSBI on the ground that they are, in effect, the employees ofSBI. 
c 
[481-F-G] 
2. SBI and the Subsidiary Banks are not in a comparable position in 
regard to the benefits claimed by the petitioners. The benefits extended to 
the employees of the Subsidiary Banks are negotiated settlements with the 
unions of their employees. The benefits which are conferred are in accordance 
with the agreements which have been reached between the Unions of the 
D employees and the Management of each Bank. In the circumstances, the 
principle of"Equal pay for equal work" is not applicable. [483-C-D] 
E 
F 
Union Territory, Chandfgarh v. Krishan Bhandari, [1996] ll SCC (L&S) 
391 and Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982[ 1 SCC 618, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 754of1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
WITH 
Writ Petitions Civil Appeal Nos. 763/89 and 819/90. 
R.K. Jain, Raju Ramachandran, Suresh C. Gupta, (S.C. Paul) for Bharat 
Sangal, Tripurari Ray and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner. 
Harish N. Salve, Anil Kumar Singal, Ms. Naina, A.V. Rangam, A. 
Ranganadhan and B.A. Ranganadhan for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. "Equal pay for equal work" for both 
men and women is one of Directive Principles of State Policy laid down in 
Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Article 37 makes it non-justiciable. Yet it 
must be borne in mind by the legislature while making laws. In Randhir singh 
H v. Union of India and Ors., [1982] I SCC 618, this Court construed Articles 
ASSOCIATE BANKS OFFICERS ASSN. v. S.B.I. [SUJA TA V. MANOHAR, J.l 
477 
14 and 16 in the light of the preamble to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.