Kshetriya Gramin Bank Hoshangabad Workers Organisation vs Kshetriya Gramin Bank Hoshangabad and Another

Arun Mishra, J.

In this writ petition, Petitioner Kshetriya Gramin Bank Hoshangabad Workers Association has prayed for the relief of issuance of direction for payment of wages to the Deposit Collectors in Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad which is a rural bank at par with the payment of Deposit Collectors of the Central Bank of India as the Petitioners are performing the same job and are entitled to get the same benefits.

It is averred in the writ petition that Petitioner union is having affiliation certificate of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, registered with the Registrar of Trade Union. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act. Central Bank of India is the sponsor bank. Kshetriiya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad is governed by the provisions of Regional Rural Bank Act. Chairman has been deputed from the cadre of employees of sponsor bank. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad has its own powers and regulations with regard to appointment of its officers and other employees to manage the affairs of the Bank.

It is further averred that Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad has introcluced a daily deposit scheme for mobilizing small savings and has engaged for the said purpose services of Deposit Collectors. The amount is collected and deposited by them in the Bank daily. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad has engaged these Deposit Collectors on contract as agent and pay them commission on the basis of transaction by Deposit Collectors. Services of 16 Deposit Collectors have been employed. Petitioners submit that employees working in various other banks have raised the disputes in various forums, one such dispute was referred for adjudication to the Tribunal at Hyderabad. An award was passed which was challenged in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Supreme Court has upheld the grant of wages of Rs. 750/- per month to the Deposit Collectors in the case of Indian Banks'' Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 36. Deposit Collectors of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad are thus entitled for the same treatment and to be treated at par with the Central Bank of India''s Deposit Collectors. Not making the payment similarly is illegal and arbitrary. They are performing the similar duties and are entitled for the uniform benefits being employees of a public sector Bank.

A return has been filled by Respondent No. 1/ Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad. It is contended in the return that Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad Workers'' Organization is an association of the employees regularly appointed by Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad. The Deposit Collectors are not in the regular employment of the Bank nor are they in any manner employees of the Bank, therefore, they cannot be the members of the Petitioner''s organization, thus, Petitioner''s organization has no right to espouse the cause of Deposit Collectors and to file writ petition. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad was not a party before the Industrial Tribunal. It is an independent statutory body constituted under Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). It has been constituted u/s 3 of the Act. Board of Directors'' constitution is provided u/s 9 of the Act. It is sponsored by Central Bank of India and Chairman has been appointed by its sponsor Bank u/s 11 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act gives "power to the Bank to appoint such numbers of officers and other employees" as it may consider necessary or desirable in such a manner as may be prescribed for efficient performance and its functions and "may determine the terms and conditions" of their appointment and service.

It is further contended by Respondent No. 1/ Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad in its return that it had floated a tiny deposit collector scheme known as Gramin Mini Deposit Scheme. The scheme contemplates collection of small amounts from persons desirous of making daily deposits in the Bank. For the purpose of collecting the amount, the Respondent/Bank needed persons who could collect the deposits. For this purpose, the Respondent/Bank has appointed agents purely on contract basis. Scheme (R/1) was framed and proforma appointment (R/2) for Deposit collection agents were issued. An agreement (R/3) was required to be executed by the Deposit Collector. The Deposit Collectors under the scheme were entitled to 2% of the total collection made by them each month in the first week of next month. Accordingly, the Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad has been paying the commission to the Deposit Collectors. Central Bank of India is a nationalized bank and it may have launched its own daily deposit scheme. The terms and conditions of Central Bank of India may be different as the appointment of deposit Collectors is purely on contract basis and is not in the nature of employment in the Bank. Therefore, the same benefits cannot be claimed by the Deposit Collectors of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad being a case of two different institutions.

It is further contended by Respondent No. 1 in its return that Petitioner is not a representative union of the Deposit Collectors. There is no parity in the terms and conditions of the appointment, two institutions being totally separate. Central Bank of India is a nationalised bank and Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad is a regional rural bank under the Act of 1976. In Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others the Apex Court has negatived the claim of the Deposit Collectors for grant of wages at par with the employees of a nationalised bank. Set up of Kshetriya Gramin Bank is totally different. No parity can be claimed. Writ petition is without substance and deserves to be dismissed.

A return has also been filed by Respondent No. 2/Central Bank of India. It is contended in the return that Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad is empowered to appoint officers and employees and to determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service u/s 17 of the Act of 1976. Board is also empowered to frame policy/ scheme for the development of the Bank. The scheme of Kshetriya Gramin Bank is for collection of small amounts from the persons desirous of making daily deposits and such a matter is governed by the agreement entered into by the Deposit Collectors with the Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Central Bank of India has not laid down any conditions for the employees of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad.

Shri Surendra Gangele, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner has submitted that Petitioners are entitled for the same treatment on the basis of parity and on the principle of equal pay for equal work. As the Central Bank of India is the sponsor bank of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad thus the payment has to be made on the same basis to Deposit Collectors. He has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 36 and conceded that though alternative remedy of approaching the Industrial Tribunal is available but as the similar duties are being rendered and parity has been claimed, interference be made in this writ petition and Petitioners may not be relegated to the alternative remedy in the circumstances of the case.

Shri v. Shroti, learned Sr. Counsel and Shri A.P. Shroti with Shri Ashish Shroti, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents has submitted that no parity can be claimed by Deposit Collectors of a rural bank with the Deposit Collectors of nationalised bank. Respondent No. 1/ Rural Bank has been constituted under the Act of 1976 which is independent. It has power to frame its own conditions of service and appoint staff and no parity can be claimed by rural bank with the nationalised bank and question of discharge of similar responsibility and duties being a question of fact cannot be gone into in this writ petition. It is the function of expert body and writ petition is not maintainable before this Court in view of availability of alternative remedy before the Industrial Tribunal.

The main question for consideration is whether the Deposit Collectors of Kshetriya Gramin Bank are entitled for the similar treatment as that of Central Bank of India which is a nationalised bank. Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad has been constituted under the Act of 1976. Section 17 of The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides that a regional rural bank may "appoint such number of officers and other employees" as it may consider necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions and "may determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service". No provision has been shown that any of the provision of the Act or Regulation or terms of sponsorship by the Central Bank of India requires that in the event it sponsors the bank, the other bank has to pay to its employees wages on similar terms and conditions as applicable to its employees/deposit collectors. No provision has been pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner which may bind Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad to make the payment at the similar rate to the Deposit Collectors which is being paid by the Central Bank of India. These are two different banks altogether; one is working exclusively in the rural areas whereas it is not the case with the Central Bank of India. What are the duties and responsibilities of the Deposit Collectors of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hoshangabad have not been pleaded in the writ petition and what are the duties and responsibilities of deposit collectors of Central Bank of India have also not been pleaded. Business of both bank may differ substantially by very nature of banks and area of operation. Kshetriya Gramin Bank has right to appoint and fix the remuneration of employees u/s 17 of the Act. A bald statement that similar duties are being performed can not be not sufficient to claim the parity. The apex Court in Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 353 has considered the question of parity of employees of regional rural bank with the nationalised bank which was claimed. Pursuant to an order dated 1.9.1987 of the Supreme Court in certain writ petitions, Govt, of India referred to the National Industrial Tribunal the claim of the employees of the regional rural banks to parity in respect of pay, salary, allowances and other benefits with the employees of the nationalised banks in corresponding or comparable posts. Pursuant to National Industrial Tribunal''s award Government of India appointed an Equation Committee and referred the award to the Committee seeking for a report in the matter of equation. On the basis of recommendation of the Equation Committee, the Union Government in exercise of power under the second proviso to Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 issued certain directions whereunder the Branch Manager''s post has been equated with the post of Asst. Manager of U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. Allahabad High Court set aside the said direction and held that the employees of the Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank/Appellant bank were entitled to scale of pay of employees of the nationalised bank. The Apex Court has set aside the decision of the Allahabad High Court of parity between Regional Rural Bank with Nationlized Bank and has held that matter of determination of parity of pay scale of employees is the function of expert bodies. The Apex Court has laid down that concept of "equal pay for equal work" and concept of "claim of parity with some others" are two different concepts. The Apex Court has further laid down that even a "single institution can form a class by itself and while deciding the question of violation of Article 14 what is required to be found out is whether there are any reasonable bases on which a single persons or group of persons are left out of the group and whether there is any rational relation for such differentiation with the object sought to be achieved. In other words, what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of such classification. The Apex Court has further held that the Equation Committee consisting of specialised personnel having examined the relevant dates and having made the equation with their expertise the same could not have been interfered with by he High Court of Allahabad.

The apex Court in State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, has held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the Court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration and in Kshetriya Gramin Kishan Bank v. D.B. Sharma and other (supra) the decision of the Allahabad High Court was set aside by which similar treatment was directed to be given to employees of Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank with that of a nationalised bank. What is material is that parity is the function of the expert bodies, evidence has to be looked into which exercise cannot be performed properly in a writ petition.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner has relied upon decision of Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 36. In that the dispute was referred to the Labour Court u/s 7-A and 10(1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act by Govt, of India between the management of 11 banks and the Deposit Collectors. In the said decision it has been held that Deposit Collectors are the workmen of the Bank and commission received by the Deposit Collectors is nothing else but wage in view of Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act "which is dependent on the productivity." The commission is paid for promoting the business of the various banks. It was further held that wage of Rs. 750/ - per month linked with a minimum deposit of Rs. 7500/- be paid to the Deposit Collectors with incentive remuneration of 2% for collection of over and above Rs. 7500/- per month. The apex Court has held that Deposit Collectors cannot claim the similar pay scale, allowances and other service conditions of the regular employees of the Bank. The case has turned on its own facts. What were he duties of those Deposit Collectors and it appears that it was. a case of nationalised bank and in the case of nationalised bank quantity of business may differ from the regional rural bank. The duties and responsibilities also depend upon the regulations and wage has to depend upon and has correlation with productivity which may substantially differ. Thus, the decision of Indian Banks Association v. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and Ors. (supra) cannot he made universally applicable with respect to regional rural bank where the conditions'' of work may totally differ and in any view of the matter the duties and responsibilities of the Deposit Collectors is a question of fact and it is conceded that Petitioner has the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, I am not inclined to make an interference in this writ petition. However, I have made the above discussion only with a view that whether interference is required to be made in this writ petition or Petitioner has to avail the alternative remedy which is admittedly available as conceded rightly by learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners also.

In view of above, I find that it is not a fit case to make an interference in the writ petition. Petitioners, if so advised, may avail the alternative remedy available before Industrial Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.