Mrs. Sharmila G S vs M/.S Indusind Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 5578 Kant

                               1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

               W.A. No.1146 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:

MRS. SHARMILA G.S.
BRANCH MANAGER
INDUSIND BANK LIMITED
BIDADI BRANCH, BANGALORE
KARNATAKA.
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. VINOD PRASAD, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    M/S. INDUSIND BANK
      BY ITS SR. GROUP MANAGER
      EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
      H.R. DEPARTMENT
      CORPORATE OFFICE
      8TH FLOOR, TOWER-1
      ONE INDIANBULLS CENTER
      841, SB MARGH
      ELPHINSTONE ROAD
      MUMBAI-40013.

2.    THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
      ZONAL HR PARTNER
      SOUTH INDUSIND BANK LTD,
      ZONAL OFFICE, BASAVANAGUDI
      NO.87, 4TH FLOOR
      BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004.
                               2



3.   RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD RAAVI
     ENQUIRY OFFICER
     CORPORATE OFFICE
     8TH FLOOR, TOWER-1
     ONE INDIANBULLS CENTER
     841, SB MARGH
     ELPHINSTONE ROAD
     MUMBAI-40013.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
                             ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.02.2019 PASSED IN WP NO.25185/2019 (S-RES) DISPOSING
OF THE WRIT PETITION, AND FURTHER ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION AS PRAYED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS,                THIS   DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed

the validity of the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by

the appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that the appellant was working as a Branch Manager in a

private bank viz., M/s Indusind Bank. The services of the

appellant were terminated by respondent No.1-Bank by an

order dated 30.07.2018 and the aforesaid order was affirmed

in appeal. The appellant thereupon assailed the aforesaid

order of termination in a writ petition. The learned Single

Judge by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court

in FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VS. SAGAR THOMAS AND

OTHERS', (2003) 10 SCC 733 dismissed the petition filed

by the appellant by holding that the writ petition in respect

of a service dispute raised by an employee against a private

bank is not maintainable. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

the writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of a

fundamental right.

4. We have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the

record. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant need not detain us as the issue has already been

decided and is no longer res integra and same has been

affirmed by decision of the Supreme Court in FEDERAL

BANK SUPRA. In the aforesaid decision also an order

terminating services of an employee was challenged before

the High Court. The Supreme Court in para 33 of the

aforesaid decision has held as under:

For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution of a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don't find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank. The respondent's service with the Bank stands terminated. The action of the bank was challenged by the respondent by filing

a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Thus, it is evident that a writ petition against a

private bank is not maintainable in respect of service dispute

raised by an employee against a private bank is not

maintainable. We do not find any ground to differ with the

view taken by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS