CANARA BANK vs BENGAL PROVINCIAL BANKS CONTRACT EMPLOYEES ASSO. & ORS.

In spite of service the respondent nos.1 and 2 are not represented. The suit is in the nature of watching and besetting. In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application praying, inter alia, for an order of injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 and 2, its members, servants and agents from interfering with the banking business of the plaintiff. The petitioner claims that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are in no way connected with the plaintiff. The members of the defendant no. 1 are not the employees of the bank. The notice of strike cannot be issued by the members belonging to the defendant no.1 disrupting the activity of the bank.

Mr. Yadav P. Das, Manager-Law, Canara Bank authorized by the plaintiff to represent the plaintiff in this proceeding has submitted that the bank has taken a policy decision to discontinue the services of the respondent no.3 from 18 ATMs with effect from 1st February, 2018 on the basis of its financial and commercial interest. The petitioner has been continuing the services of the defendant no.3 in the premises of existing 7 numbers of e-Lounges. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 insists for continuation of services of the respondent no.3 in the 18 numbers of ATMs from where the petitioner has withdrawn the services of the respondent no.3 with effect from 1st February, 2018 on the ground that total number of 63 employees of the respondent no.3 would be affected as they would become unemployed. It is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the respondent nos.1 and 2 inasmuch as the respondent no.1 is not recognized union of the petitioner. Mr. Das has referred to the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act and submits that the strike as threatened would disrupt the banking activity.

However, Mr. Das has submitted that a conciliation proceeding is pending and the bank could participate in such proceeding in order to make clear its stand before the conciliation officer. There cannot be any doubt that the apprehension expressed by the plaintiff that it would disrupt the banking activity in the wake of a threat of strike cannot be ignored. It cannot be also ignored that in view of the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act and the common law right enjoyed by the plaintiff, no one has any right to disrupt the banking function. The Court is also of the prima facie view that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 and 2 or members of the defendant no.1. Under such circumstances, there shall be an order in term of prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion.

This order, however, shall not prevent the members of the association from holding peaceful demonstration at a distance beyond 100 meters. The bank shall also participate at the conciliation without prejudice to the rights and contentions that they are not parties to the dispute. The application is made returnable on 28th February, 2018. The petitioner shall immediately communicate this order to the respondents.