Gujarat High Court
Paresh vs Governor on 20 October, 2008
Author: K.S. Radhakrishnan
Bench: K.S.Radhakrishnan
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12689/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12689 of 2008
=============================================
PARESH
JAYANTILAL MEHTA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GOVERNOR
- RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & 4 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
PARESH J MEHTA PARTY-IN-PERSON for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
5.
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 20/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN) Heard Mr.P.J.Mehta, party-in-person on this public interest litigation.
The petitioner ? party-in-person is a practicing Advocate.
He has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to command the employees / officers of the nationalised banks not to indulge in strike since they are discharging the public functions.
Learned counsel submitted that the bank employees are resorting to strikes frequently and thereby indulging in illegal activities time and again, therefore, appropriate directions be given to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take appropriate actions under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. Directions are also sought for against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate appropriate actions under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. He also prayed for other consequential relief.
Learned counsel has tried to impress upon us that the bank employees after having enjoyed all benefits of pay, handsome allowances and revision of pay-scales, put the people under ban by indulging in strikes frequently and very often disrupting the public banks and the financial system which directly affects the various small and large scale financial dealings in the country.
Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Bharat Kumar K. Palicha v. State reported in AIR 1997 Ker 291 (FB) banning the strike. A reference is also made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.K.Rangarajan v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 3032 and submitted that the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules (1973) held that the Government servant has no right to go on strike neither fundamental not statutory nor moral right. Learned counsel has also made a reference to the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad reported in 1987 (1) GLR 431 and pointed out that the nationalised banks are duty bound to see that public interest is safeguarded and if the State fails to discharge that duty, the Court will not render any assistance to the bank in its objective of harming public interest. He submitted that the bank employees by indulging in strikes, disrupt the social life of the people at large and therefore, this Court should issue writ of mandamus directing the bank employees not to indulge in strikes and illegal activities of disrupting the social life.
Learned counsel also referred to the various provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and submitted that appropriate actions be taken prohibiting the bank employees not to indulge in illegal strike. A reference is also made to the provisions of Section 2(o) of the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 since there will be deficiency in the services. Learned counsel, further, relying on the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 has submitted that appropriate direction be given to the respondents to take suitable punitive actions against the employees of the banks indulging in strikes.
We are in full agreement with the ratio laid down in the cited decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the other High Courts. However, considering the general grievances raised in this writ petition coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the public interest litigation can not be entertained under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We will not be justified in giving a declaration under writ jurisdiction to the bank employees not to indulge in strike. If any bank employees / associations are indulging in strike and other illegal activities, it will be for the competent authority to take appropriate actions under the various legislations and enactments made by the Parliament including the Industrial Disputes Act, Banking Regulations Act, Consumers Protection Act and under various State Legislation.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the Special Civil Application does not warrant any interference under writ jurisdiction and the same is, therefore, rejected accordingly.
The Special Civil Application stands dismissed.
(K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, C.J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.) kailash Top