LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS versus STATE BANK OF INDIA CANTEEN EMPLOYEES' UNION (BENGAL CIRCLE) AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. STATE BANK OF INDIA CANTEEN EMPLOYEES' UNION (BENGAL CIRCLE) AND ORS. APRIL 17, 2000 [A.P. MISRA AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Labour Laws : A B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section I I-Reference-Canteen employ- ees of State Bank of India-Claim to be absorbed as employees of State Bank C of India-Whether maintainable-Held, No-Canteens being run at various branches by Local Implementation Committees as per Welfare Scheme framed by SBI-Bank not having any statutory or contractual obligation to run such canteens. The State Bank of India Canteen Employees' Union raised a dispute claiming that the canteen employees ostensibly employed by the Local Implementation Committee as per the Scheme framed by the SBI for providing certain amenities, were employees of the State Bank. The lndt1 trial Tribunal rejected the claim and held that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the canteen boys appointed by the Local Implementation Committee run canteens and the Bank; that. the Bank provides canteen facilities to its employees as amenities and for that pur- pose set up of canteens by giving subsidies and the Bank has nothing to do with the supervision or the day to day running of the canteens. Bank's action in giving appointment to the persons rendering service in bigger branches having staff strength of 100 and above, was held to be not discriminatory, it being the outcome of protected negotiations between the parties from 1977 to 1991 as expressed in four settlem~nts between the Bank and the Union. Employees' Union filed special leave petition against the Award, alleging that the Bank has as obligation to provide canteen facility as one of the staff Welfare activities prepared by the SBI on the basis of Sastri Award. The Bank submitted that neither Sastri Award nor Staff Welfare Activities provide canteen facilities to its employees and that the appointment of the employees by the Bank is being regulated by statutory regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India while in the case of canteen employees run by the LIC, the Bank does not have any control in D E F G their appointment. H 37 38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R. A Disposing of the matter, the Court B c D E F G H HELD : 1.1. Employees of the canteens, which are run at various branches by the Local Implementation Committees as per the Welfare Scheme framed by SBI, would not become employees of the Bank as the Bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the Award to run such canteens. [59-H 60-A] 1.2. There is no obligation upon the Bank statutory· cit otherwise • to run the canteens. The scheme only provides for grant of subsidy, for promoting the running of canteen and if some more cost is incurred in running the canteen, the members of the staff working in that particular branch are required to bear it. The Bank is not employing the canteen workers. The Bank is not supervising or controlling the work or the details regarding the canteen or its employees appointed by the Local Implemen- tation Committee. Auditing the work of Local Implementation Committee • whether subsidy given by it is properly utilised or not also would not be a ground for holding that Bank is having any control in running the canteen. Bank is not taking any disciplinary action or directing any canteen em- ployee to do a particular work so far that purpose no scheme is laid down by the Bank. Not only this, the recruitment by the Bank is to be made as per the statutory rules framed by it after giving proper advertisement, test and/ or interview. As against this, for appointing a canteen employee there are qo rules framed by the Bank. [54-F -H; 55-A] 1.3. The canteens run by LIC in a branch having strength of less than 100 employees are non-statutory non-recognised canteens because admit- tedly there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of award or contract between the employees of the Bank in running such canteens. Finally the 4th settlement was arrived at between All India SBI Staff ~ederation and the Bank which inter'alia provides that Bank will take over canteens from Local Implementation Committees concerned at such offices/branches having a minimum staff strength of 100 where the can- teens are being run by the said Committees. Hence, contractual obligation is limited to that extent. For the canteens
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.