Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debasis Mukherjee vs Idbi Ltd. & Ors on 11 February, 2021
11-02-2021
ct no. 13
Sl.3
sp
WPA 5016 of 2020
With
CAN 1 of 2020
Debasis Mukherjee
-Versus-
IDBI Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee,
Mr. P. Baidya,
Mr. Partha Sarathi Das
...for the petitioner
Mr. L.K. Gupta,
Mr. Ranjay De,
Mr. B. Banerjee
...for the IDBI Bank Ltd.
The parties have advanced arguments on
the demurer. Parties have used limited affidavits
and have brought material on record.
Counsel for the Bank would argue in
demurer fact that the Industrial Development
Bank of India Limited which was originally a
creature of a special statute, subsequently
emerged as the IDBI Bank Ltd., a Government
company under the Companies Act, 1956. The
statute has since been repealed the majority
shareholding in the IDBI Bank Ltd. is now with
the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The
Chairman of the LIC is ex officio non-executive
whole time chairman of the IDBI Bank Ltd.
Managing Director and CEO is nominated by
2
LIC. Two whole time Deputy Managing Directors
are nominated by the LIC. One official nominee
is also by LIC. Two nominated Directors are of
the Government of India and aid rotational
independent Directors are appointed by the
shareholders in the General Meeting in terms of
Section 149 (4) of the Companies Act of 2013.
The Central Government has no direct or
even indirect control over the administration
and management of the Bank. It is also argued
that merely because banking is a public
function and the bank is required to comply
with the Directives of the Reserve Bank of India
and under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as
also the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, would
not, bring it within the meaning of other
authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.
The reliance is placed on the judgements
already referred to in the order dated January
19, 2021.
Per contra, counsel for the writ petitioner
would argue that by reason of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India being directly under the
control of the Central Government and the said
LIC having majority share holding in the IDBI
Bank, there is indirect control of the Central
Government on the Bank. The Bank is required
3
to follow the RBI directives as also the Banking
Regulations Act and hence there is substantial
public functions performed by the Bank.
It is further argued that by reason of the
Act which repealed the Industrial Development
Bank of India Act, certain obligations towards
the employees were required to be maintained
by the new entity i.e. the IDBI Ltd. Hence his
claim can be agitated under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
This Court has carefully considered the
arguments of both sides as also the decisions
relied upon and referred to in this Court's order
dated January 19, 2021. The said decisions are
Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and
others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 and
Pradip Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology and others reported in
(2002) 5 SCC 111. The said decision was
followed in Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. UOI reported
in (2005) 4 SCC 649 and S.S. Rana Vs.
Registrar Societies and Anr. reported in
(2006) 11 SCC 634. This Court has also
considered the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative
Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and
Ors. reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82.
4
The attention of this Court has drawn to
the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Mrinmayee Rohit
Umrotkar vs. Union of India and others being
judgment dated December 8, 2020 passed in WP
(L) No. 6704 of 2020 which dealt with the
respondent Bank in particular. It was held in
the said decision that a writ under Article 226
cannot lie against the IDBI Ltd. This Court is
persuaded by the views expressed by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
The decision of Rajbir Suraj Bhan Singh
vs. Chairman, Institute of Banking
Personnel Selection, Mumbai reported in
(2019) 14 SCC 189 is distinguishable on the
facts particularly since the organization
involved, there was an Institute of Banking
Personnel.
The writ petitioner seeks enforcement of
certain obligations that could definitely be
deemed as statutory nature. The obligations
being protection of certain service benefits
which were available to those employed with the
original statutory corporation and its
subsequent avtar the IDBI Bank Ltd.
This Court is of the view that even
enforcement of such obligations which have
been ensured to employees like the writ
petitioner of the IDBI Bank, should be viewed in
the context of the legal status of the Bank as it
stands today.
The writ petitioner's grievance is that non-
compliance of the prior statutory obligations
and the compliant of the writ petitioner in this
regard to the Government authority has led to
disciplinary proceedings. The same is denied by
the counsel for the Bank.
The IDBI Bank Ltd., is clearly under the
control of the LIC and not the Central
Government. The cause of action of the writ
petitioner even for the purpose of enforcement of
prior statutory obligations against the IDBI Ltd.
would not lie under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The Central Government
has little or no Administrative or financial
control on the IDBI Ltd. The IDBI Ltd. in the
opinion of this Court cannot come under the
expression other authority under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the
instant writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of the above, the connected
application is disposed of.
It is made clear that this Court has not
entered into the merits of the claim of the writ
petitioner against the IDBI Ltd. The same may
be decided by any forum of competent
jurisdiction that the petitioner may choose to
approach in accordance with law.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this
order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon
compliance of all formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
