- (1.) Matter has been posted today on urgent mentioning on account of exigency arisen on the declaration of strike by the respondent Association of the petitioner Bank from 28.03.2016 to 31.03.2016.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank submits that Officers and Staff of the petitioner Bank in this State and many other States, have been apparently aggrieved by the statement made by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in his Budget speech on reducing the share holding of Government of India below 51% of the petitioner Bank. They have felt a sense of insecurity and apprehension that their service conditions and retention in service may be adversely affected. Petitioner Bank is categorized as "other public sector Bank" by the Reserve Bank of India pursuant to the IDBI Repeal Act. President of India is the Promoter of the petitioner Bank through the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Government of India holds more than 51% of the equity share capital of the petitioner Bank. It is the single largest shareholder of the petitioner Bank holding 81.16% equity in the share capital of the Bank. Petitioner has suffered net loss of Rs. 1,929 crores during the last financial year in the first three quarter and net loss of December quarter alone is Rs. 2,184 crores. Bank is facing dire financial crisis and not only has to increase its capital base in order to remain competitive, but also in order to meet the regulatory requirements of law. The period of call of strike is closing of the financial year. Huge financial transactions are undertaken at the closing of the financial year by not only the private customers, but also by the State Government and its instrumentality. Functions of the Bank would come to a grinding halt, if a restraint order is not passed upon the respondent Association from indulging in strike and preventing normal banking activity. It is submitted that such a course is not only unlawful under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as Manager and Staff of the Bank are not workmen, but also in teeth of the service condition under which, they function under the petitioner Bank. Reliance has also been placed upon section 36AD of Part ­ IIB of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which reads as under: Part IIB: PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO BANKING COMPANIES: 36AD. Punishments for certain activities in relation to banking companies._ (1) No person shall - (a) obstruct any person from lawfully entering or leaving any office or place of business of a banking company or from carrying on any business there, or (b) hold, within the office or place of business of any banking company, any demonstration which is violent or which prevents, or is calculated to prevent, the transaction of normal business by the banking company, or c) act in any manner calculated to undermine the confidence of the depositors in the banking company. (2) Whoever contravenes any provision of sub -section (1) without any reasonable excuse shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. (3) For the purposes of this section "banking company" includes the Reserve Bank, the Exim bank, (the Reconstruction Bank) (the National Housing Bank), the National Bank, (the Small Industries bank), the State Bank of India, a corresponding new bank, a regional rural bank and a subsidiary bank."
(3.) It is submitted that on such exigency arisen across the country, the petitioner bank has been compelled to seek emergent relief in the nature of restraint order upon the respondent Associations from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 16332/2016 vide order dated 24.03.2016 (Annexure - 2), also before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CS(OS) 145/2016 vide order dated 22.03.2016, as also before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Suit (L) No. 291/2016 vide order dated 23.03.2016 (Annexure -4) passed in similar circumstances. It is submitted that the restraint order in the manner passed by the Hon'ble Courts may also be issued upon the respondent Association to prevent them from obstructing normal functioning of the office and other establishment of the petitioner Bank and at the same time, preventing them from carrying out activities which obstruct the customers or investors or any other willing employee of the Bank and its daily normal functioning.;