Calcutta High Court
Hdfc Bank Ltd vs Paschimbanga Contractors Security on 11 November, 2022
Author: Arindam Mukherjee
Bench: Arindam Mukherjee
OD-8
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/1/2022
In CS/268/2022
HDFC BANK LTD
Vs
PASCHIMBANGA CONTRACTORS SECURITY
AND MAINTENANCE WORKERS UNION AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Date : 11th November, 2022.
Appearance:
Mr. Suman Dutt, Adv.
Ms. Manali Ali, Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Joydeep Roy, Adv.
...for the HDFC Bank
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Lal Ratan Mondal, Adv.
Ms. D. Ganguly, Adv.
...for the respondent no. 6
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv.
...for the defendant no. 8 Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv.
...for the proforma defendant no.11 Mr. Debanjan Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. R. Sarkar, Adv.
...for the proforma defendant no. 13 The Court:- Pursuant to the service effected by the plaintiff in terms of the order dated 31st October, 2022, the proforma defendants/respondents no. 6, 8, 11 and 13 are represented by the Advocates.
2
On behalf of respondent no. 6, it is submitted that the said respondent is a contractor under the HDFC Bank Limited, the plaintiff. Under the contract the said proforma defendants/respondents supply human resource. The said proforma defendants/respondents received money from the plaintiff as per the contract and in turn pays the contractual workers engaged in the bank through them as per the terms of appointment between the contractual workers and the said proforma defendants/respondents. The said proforma respondents/defendants further submit that the salary and emoluments paid by the said proforma respondents/defendants to the contractual workers engaged through them is over and above the minimum wages as per the Memo No.108/Stat/2RW/9/2028/LCS/JLC dated 6th July, 2022 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Office of the Labour Commission, Statistics Section. Referring to the said memorandum, it is submitted that a peon/cleaner/sweeper/security guard/bearer/messenger is required to be paid minimum wage of Rs.9239/- per month and the proforma defendant/respondent no. 6 is paying at the said rate. It is further submitted that in case of highly skilled workers as indicated under the serial no. 12 of the said memorandum, the proforma defendant/respondent no. 6 is paying at the rate of Rs.13,133/- per month instead of the minimum wage of Rs.12,197/- per month. It is also submitted that this rate is applicable till 31st December, 2022. The other defendants/respondents submit on the same line and says that after complying with all statutory requirements they are paying the contractual workers engaged 3 through then as per the minimum rate of wage and in some cases even higher than that.
On behalf of the plaintiff, it is submitted that in terms of the submissions made by the proforma defendants/respondents no.6, 8, 11 and 13, the stand of the plaintiff bank as in the plaint is established and clarified. It is crystal clear that there is no privity of contract between the contractual workers engaged through the contractors and the plaintiff bank. The members of the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 under the garb of trade union activities cannot sit for dharna or demonstration and picketting at the bank's premises to cause detriment to the plaintiff's banking business on the ground of higher wages from the proforma defendants/respondents being the contractor.
On behalf of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 the stand taken by the proforma defendant nos. 6, 8, 11 and 13 are disputed. The said defendants submit that between October, 2008 to October, 2016 the proforma defendants/respondents have given two increments every year which has been discontinued after October, 2016. In order to realise their rightful dues and enhancement of wages the members of defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 intend to hold peaceful demonstration. The holding of demonstration is a democratic right protected under the trade union movement.
These issues regarding increases of wages and refusal thereof as alleged by the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be decided by this Court in the present suit.
4
Considering the submissions as aforesaid, I think justice will be sub-served if I allow the members of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 either jointly or severally through their respective unions or as individuals to approach the appropriate government in terms of the order dated 22nd January, 2019 passed in WP No. 9628(W) of 2018 by 31st December, 2022. Although , the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 did not approach the competent authority even after the order dated 22nd January, 2019 but considering the pandemic in between this, leniency is shown. In the event such approach is being made, the appropriate authority shall make an endeavour to dispose of such application/reference by 30th June, 2023, by a reasoned order after affording opportunity to the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and/or representative of the casual workers of reasonable opportunity of hearing.
At the same time a protection is to be given to the plaintiff bank after having made out a prima facie case on facts as to the nature of engagement of the members of the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 and that there is no privity of contract between the contractual workers engaged through proforma defendants except the statutory obligations. No prima facie case is made out by the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 as to violation of statutory obligation by the plaintiff bank. If the members of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 resort to dharna, demonstration or picketting at the banks' premises or at the gate then the customers of the plaintiff bank may be reluctant in visiting the bank and/or its branches which in effect is likely to cause detriment to the banking business. Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 36AD of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and their members are directed not resort to 5 any dharna or demonstration at the premises of the plaintiff bank on this issue till 30th June, 2023. In case of any breach it will be open to the plaintiff to take appropriate steps.
GA/1/2022 stands disposed of as nothing further remain to be adjudicated therein.
(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) S.Bag