TA No.23 of 2016 CS No.95 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IDBI BANK LIMITED -VersusALL INDIA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS.Appearance: Mr.Surojit Nath Mitra, Sr.Adv.Mr.Mainak Bose, Adv.Mr.Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Paritosh Sinha, Adv...for the plaintiff.
BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE HARISH TANDON Date : 29th March, 2016.
The Court : The instant application is taken out by IDBI Bank Limited for an order of injunction restraining the respondents, who are seven different trade union organizations of the plaintiff bank.
The averments made in the application would reveal that the Government of India was holding nearly 81% of its equity share capital directly and 8% and odd indirectly thus having nearly 88% of equity share capital of the plaintiff bank.
The bank alleges that it has suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.1929 crores during the period from 1st April, 2015 to 31st December, 2015 and in the last quarter of December, it has suffered immensely which has gone upto 2200 and odd crores.
The plaintiff bank was permitted by the Government of India to raise its capital through qualified institutional placement route subject, however, that the total equity share capital shall not bring down below 51%.
The sense has been percolated in the minds of the seven several trade unions by the speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister in budget session that the share capital of the plaintiff bank would be changed and the plaintiff bank is going to be privatized wholly.
from In the backdrop of the aforesaid impression having drawn the budget speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister, the defendant Unions have decided to go on strike between the period from 28th March, 2016 to 31st March, 2016.
The plaintiff bank says that on the advent of the financial year, if the customers are prevented from using and utilizing the services rendered by the plaintiff bank, it would add to a further loss and a situation may arise which may become irreversible.
There are 100 branches of the plaintiff bank in and around the State, and by such decision the functioning of the plaintiff bank shall be standstill or put at halt.
It is submitted that the employees belonging to seven Trade Unions are preventing the preventing the Certain others from customers photographs taken to entering avail yesterday, the the branches services have been so and also rendered.
produced before this Court to demonstrate that there has been a total deadlock created by the members of the said Trade Unions affecting adversely the interest of the plaintiff bank and causing disruption in the smooth functioning of the business so conducted.
Let the photographs be kept on record.
The affidavit of service filed today reveals that the service of the application could only be effected upon some of the defendants and others have returned with the postal remark “door locked”.
There is no representation on behalf of the defendants when the matter is taken up today.
It goes without saying that the banking operations are essential to the functioning of the Nation and its growth.
If the functioning is allowed to be put at halt, it would percolate a negative sense in the minds of the citizens and may directly or indirectly affect the economic growth.
The attention of this Court is drawn to a judgment of this Court in case of Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank LTD.versus Grindlays Bank Employees’ Association & ORS.reported in 2001(3)CHN550on the maintainability of the suit of such nature and the embargo created under Section 18 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 does not in stricto sensu apply.
This Court, therefore, finds a prima facie case has been made out and the balance of convenience injunction and in inconvenience favour of the lies in plaintiff passing bank.
an order Considering of the paramount interest of the Nation, the defendants and each of them by themselves or by their men, representatives, associates, aids, agents, assigns, nominees, supporters and members are restrained by an order of stay: i) Committing any acts that would obstruct the normal functioning at the office and other establishments of the petitioner-Bank or in any of its branches and/or office in West Bengal in any manner whatsoever; ii) Threatening or intimidating, abusing gheraoing and/or wrongfully confining any officer or member of the and/or supervisor customers staff of or the any other employees petitioner-Bank in West Bengal; iii) Holding any meeting or demonstration or squatting in the organizing premises of unlawful the petitioner-Bank assemblies in or around or the offices, and/or branch premises of the petitionerBank or within 100 meters thereof without previous permission of the petitioner-Bank in writing; iv) Shouting slogans within a distance of 100 meters from the offices petitioner-Bank megaphones/lour and/or or using hailers distance of 100 meteRs.branch premises loud speakers within the of the and/or aforesaid v) Displaying posters and/or or pasting slogans and/or within painting any office or the establishment or any part thereof (except on the Notice Board of the Association) or on the outside walls, gates, gate posts or upon any part of the property of the petitioner-Bank including the outside walls, gates, gate-posts, or upon any part of the property branches or or compound otherwise of the damaging, offices or destroying, defacing, mutilating, disfiguring or spoiling the property of the petitioner-Bank in any manner whatsoever; vi) Obstructing any customer or investor or constituent or any willing employees of the petitioner-Bank qua dealing with the Bank; vii) Obstructing ingress or to egress from the office or branch premises of the petitioner-Bank in West Bengal; viii) Obstructing in any manner whatsoever, the free movement of the vehicles or their entry and exit to an from the office premises of the petitioner-Bank or other establishments, under the control of the petitioner-Bank including the branches; Considering the scope and the nature of the suit and bearing in mind the paramount consideration as indicated above, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the notice of motion.
The petitioner is directed to comply Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure immediately.
The application is made returnable after four weeks.
is, however, open to the respondents to pray for variation, modification and/or set aside the order of injunction.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) A/s.
It