is concerned, it will not be necessary that each of the employees
should have the salary account with official bank itself. The
official bank can very well transfer the salary of the petitioners
to their accounts existing in SBI, on a request/standing
instruction from the accounts wing of the 1st respondent. For
such transfers, the 1st respondent need not compel the
petitioners to open zero balance account or salary account with
IDBI, in case they do not want to have any transaction with the
IDBI. The audit objection raised against making payment in cash
could have been rectified by placing proper instructions to the
official bank of the 1st respondent having the financial
transactions including salary of the staff of the 1st respondent to
transfer the salary due to the petitioners to their account. As
soon as the account number and other details of the petitioners
are furnished to the official Bank, it is quite possible that the
amounts due to each of the employee are credited to their
account. Thereby the 1st respondent will get the services of the
IDBI also as explained by them in the counter affidavit even
without insisting the petitioners to have accounts with the IDBI.
Such trivial matters could have been solved at the end of the 1st
respondent itself. Therefore, denial of salary to the petitioners on
the ground that they did not open account with IDBI bank is
illegal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017
WP(C).No. 37894 of 2016 (J)
T.M.DINESH KUMAR,
V
MALABAR CANCER CENTRE SOCIETY,
8 employees of the Malabar Cancer Centre ('MCC' for
short) -the 1st respondent, have filed this writ petition
challenging Exts.P3 to P10 letters by which they were requested
to open their savings account in IDBI (Industrial Development
Bank of India), the official bank of the 1st respondent, for
disbursement of salary. By these letters they were also informed
that they can retain their existing bank account giving a request
to the IDBI bank to transfer their salary to the existing bank
account. The petitioners submit that they are not paid their
salary since they did not oblige to the request/demand of 1st
respondent.
2. The MCC had issued Ext.P12 circular on 3.6.2013
informing that its banking transactions had been shifted to the
IDBI, Thalassery and accordingly salary accounts of all the staff
need be maintained with the new bank. All permanent staff
members were requested to fill up the application form for
starting new account and to submit the duly filled forms on or
before 12.6.2013. On coming to know about the circular, the
staff association of the 1st respondent, of which the petitioners
are also members, protested against the same and submitted
Ext.P11 mass representation saying that the 1st respondent had
taken a unilateral decision without having any discussion with
the members of the staff.
3. According to the petitioners, they did neither shift
their account to the IDBI bank nor open new account with it.
Therefore, their salary was being paid in cash. While so, they
received Exts.P3 to P10 letters dated 19.08.2016 from the 3rd
respondent asking them to open the account with the IDBI bank
immediately. It was stated that the statutory auditors of the 1st
respondent had in their interim report for the year 2014-15
raised objections to the effect that few permanent staff members
were yet to open their savings account through the official bank
(IDBI bank) for salary disbursal. In those circumstances, the
administrative officer of the 1st respondent informed the
petitioners that in view of the objections raised in the audit,
salary can be disbursed only through bank account and not by
any other means. The petitioners were therefore requested to
start their account immediately after obtaining the application
from the Help Desk of IDBI at MCC. They were informed that
they will be free to retain their existing bank account and they
can request the IDBI bank to transfer their entire salary or the
amount they wish to transfer to the existing bank account. The
petitioners, while challenging these letters allege that they have
not received salary from August, 2016 onwards and they did not
get the festival (Onam advance and other) allowances.
According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent continues to
have their several transactions like payment of tax through SBI,
Thalassery itself and therefore, the 1st respondent cannot insist
the petitioners to change their bank account to IDBI. According
to them it is their right to decide the Bank in which they should
open an account. It is also their case that being a public sector
bank it is possible for them to avail loans from the SBI. It is also
stated that earlier, financial transactions of the 1st respondent
were through Corporation Bank, which was later shifted to State
Bank of India.
4. Thus the petitioners insist that they should get salary
through the existing account with the SBI itself without insisting
them to open accounts with the IDBI.
5. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit
explaining the circumstances under which they had to shift their
financial transactions to the IDBI, Thalassery branch, which has
opened a counter at MCC itself. The circumstances are
explained in paragraphs 6 and 12 of the counter affidavit which
read as follows:
"6. It is submitted that in addition to the Treasury Savings
Bank Account Malabar Cancer Centre (MCC) was also operating a
Savings Bank Account in the State Bank of India, Thalassery Branch.
The Institute found that the banking services rendered by the SBI
Thalassery Branch, was totally unsatisfactory and the same cannot be
continued in the best interests of the functioning of the Institute. I
may be permitted to submit that the services rendered by the SBI
Thalassery Branch was found to be non friendly and unsatisfactory
essentially for the following reasons:-
(A) In spite of repeated requests having been made by the
Institute to the SBI Branch, the Bank refused to consider the proposal
of the Institute to start an Extension Counter and an ATM in the
Institute premises, even though all Official transactions of Malabar
Cancer Centre (MCC) were being handled by the SBI. It is submitted
that an Extension Counter of the Bank in the Institute was suggested
because every day one staff from the Malabar Cancer Centre (MCC)
had to carry huge amount of Cash to the Bank which is located 6
Kilometers from the Malabar Cancer Centre (MCC), for remittance.
The above procedure involves a lot of risk and additional expenditure.
It is submitted that an extension counter would have helped the staff
to avoid to go to the State Bank of India for every transaction which
lead to loss of manpower, and the same would adversely affect the
smooth functioning of the Institution which is a Cancer Hospital.
(B) The request of the Institute to the SBI to waive the
Demand Draft Commission was never considered by the Bank.
(C) For opening a letter of credit for purchase of major
equipments, the Senior Officials of the Bank including the Director,
had to travel nearly 30 Kilometers to reach theKannur Branch of SBI
wherein the transactions has to take place. The Director of the
Institute who is the Chief Surgeon on the Institute found it extremely
difficult to make frequent visits to the SBI Bank at Kannur, at the risk
of his function as the Surgeon.
(D) The proposal of the Institute for improving the facilities
in the Clinical Laboratory by submitting a project to the SBI for
consideration under the Corporate Social Responsibility Scheme did
not receive any positive response from the Bank.
(E) The request made by the Institute for starting an ATM
Counter in the Campus of Malabar Cancer Centre (MCC) to cater to
the needs of the patients and staff for availing basic banking services
did not receive any positive response from the Bank.
12. I take leave to bring to the notice of this Hon'ble Court
that the Executive Committee of the Institute has also evaluated the
various benefits which will be available to the staff of the Institute in
the event of opening an Account in the IDBI Thalassery Branch. The
following are some of the benefits which will be available to the staff
of the Institute.
(a) There are attractive benefits extended to the staff
members of the Institute for taking Home loan, and Vehicle loan from
the Bank (with maximum 0.5% reduction) this is a Special benefit
extended to the employees of the Institute alone by the IDBI extension
counter, which is not available in the other Branches of the Bank.
(b) Personal loan and salary over draft of 3 months net
salary for salary account holders with additional discount or normal
rates with a maximum of 0.5% reduction. Personal loan and over draft
facility without security is extended to the Malabar Cancer Centre
(MCC) staff only.
(c) Quick processing of such loans is carried out in the
extension counter for the convenience of the staff.
(d) Employees are permitted to start zero ...."
They have further stated that several benefits are also available
to the staff like the petitioners on opening their accounts with
the IDBI, Thalassery branch. According to the 1st respondent, it
is on account of the practical difficulties faced by them, since
the SBI bank was not co-operating with it, that it had to shift the
account to the IDBI. It is also stated that the 1st respondent had
never requested the petitioners to close their account with the
SBI, Thalassery and it is possible for the petitioners to open a
zero balance account with the IDBI and get those amounts
transferred to the bank in which they are having account. Sri.
Nandkumara Menon, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents asserted that petitioners do not deserve any relief
from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It
is also pointed out that all the staff except the petitioners have
opened the account with IDBI and the circular was issued as
early as in 2013. It is also pointed out that the IDBI is also
having the status of a nationalised bank.
6. According to Ms. Aruna the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, it is for the petitioners to decide the bank in
which they should have account. She points out that the
customers having salary account are given several benefits and
they are not prepared to give up those benefits available from a
nationalised bank by opening their salary account with the IDBI
as requested in Exts.P3 to P10. It is also their case that IDBI is
not a nationalised bank and at any rate petitioners are getting
more benefits from SBI.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the 1st respondent which is a public undertaking within the
meaning of State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India cannot act arbitrarily like a private employer.
8. Having considered the rival contentions on either
side, it would appear that all these objections initially arose on
the ground that there was no discussion held with the
employees' association regarding the shifting to the new official
bank, as seen from Ext.P11. Therefore, it was a matter which
could have been resolved at the end of the 1st respondent itself
and the matter has reached this court as a result of the ego
which played between the petitioners as well as those who are at
the helm of affairs of the 1st respondent.
9. As far as the drawal of salary through a bank account
is concerned, it will not be necessary that each of the employees
should have the salary account with official bank itself. The
official bank can very well transfer the salary of the petitioners
to their accounts existing in SBI, on a request/standing
instruction from the accounts wing of the 1st respondent. For
such transfers, the 1st respondent need not compel the
petitioners to open zero balance account or salary account with
IDBI, in case they do not want to have any transaction with the
IDBI. The audit objection raised against making payment in cash
could have been rectified by placing proper instructions to the
official bank of the 1st respondent having the financial
transactions including salary of the staff of the 1st respondent to
transfer the salary due to the petitioners to their account. As
soon as the account number and other details of the petitioners
are furnished to the official Bank, it is quite possible that the
amounts due to each of the employee are credited to their
account. Thereby the 1st respondent will get the services of the
IDBI also as explained by them in the counter affidavit even
without insisting the petitioners to have accounts with the IDBI.
Such trivial matters could have been solved at the end of the 1st
respondent itself. Therefore, denial of salary to the petitioners on
the ground that they did not open account with IDBI bank is
illegal.
Under the above circumstances, 1st respondent is directed
to take appropriate action to see that the pay and allowances and
all the monetary benefits due to the petitioners are credited to
their account from the IDBI bank to the respective existing
salary accounts of the petitioners in SBI, along with arrears if
any without any further delay and at any rate within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment