High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-04Writ petition dismissed; petitioners left to pu...

M.F. Paulson v. Chair Person and District Collector (Nodal Officer), Disaster Management Authority, Thrissur District; Chair Person & District Collector (Nodal Officer), Disaster Management Authority, Ernakulam District; Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kakkanad; The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, represented by its Managing Director

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2020-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; the court held that the petition is not maintainable against a private scheduled bank and that the respondents are not bound to decide the representations. The decision leaves open rights to pursue remedies in appropriate proceedings as enjoined by law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; petitioners left to pursue remedies in appropriate proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.F. Paulson, Branch Manager (Emp 45063), Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Aranattukara Branch, Thrissur – 680001

Respondents

The Chair Person and District Collector (Nodal Officer) Disaster Management Authority, Thrissur District, Thrissur – 680001
The Chair Person & District Collector, (Nodal Officer), Disaster Management Authority, Ernakulam District, Ernakulam – 682031
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Kakkanad, Ernakulam – 682031
The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, represented by its Managing Director, CSB Bhavan, St. Mary's College Road, Thrissur – 680020

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. KrishnaMoorthy
• Smt. Nithya Sugunan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Nisha Bose - Sr GP
• Sri Aneesh Jain
• Sri C.A. Joy
• (4) SC Sri.C.A. Joy

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition challenges transfer orders issued by Catholic Syrian Bank Limited during the COVID-19 lockdown, transferring bank officers from Thrissur to inter-state branches in Chennai, Rajasthan, and New Delhi. The petitioners contend the inter-state transfers were issued without adequate regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Government’s measures to curb the spread, making immediate relief necessary. Exts. P2–P4 are the transfer orders; Exts. P5–P7 are representations to the Disaster Management Authorities seeking to keep the transfers in abeyance, and Ext. P8 is a representation to the Central Labour Commissioner. The petition raises two issues: (i) whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition against a private scheduled bank, and (ii) whether the Court can direct the authorities to consider the representations. The court relies on precedents including Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Mathew Ignitious C.v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd to conclude that a writ petition against a private scheduled bank is not maintainable, and that the Disaster Management Act provides no remedy for such grievances. The court also cites Government of India v. P. Venkatesh regarding the perils of prematurely disposing of representations. The petition is dismissed, but rights to pursue remedies in appropriate proceedings are left open. The decision emphasizes that the “dispose of the representation” approach is inappropriate for substantive adjudication.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 21, Constitution of IndiaDisaster Management ActIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the interstate transfer orders issued by the bank during the COVID-19 lockdown contravene the ongoing public health measures and guidelines. They submitted that the pandemic requires careful handling of postings and that Exts.P5–P7 representations, and Ext.P8 to the Central Labour Commissioner, should be considered before enforcing transfers. They contended that immediate relief is necessary to prevent violation of the right to life under Article 21, and urged the court to keep the transfers in abeyance pending consideration of their representations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the petition challenges a private scheduled bank, for which the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not applicable, citing established precedents (Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas) and the position that writ petitions can only be entertained for enforcement of a specified public duty in such a context. They submitted that the Disaster Management Act provides no remedy for such grievances and that the 3rd respondent has no role in transfers made by the bank. They also noted that the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to officers of the bank, and that directing consideration of Exts.P5–P8 would improperly encroach on private contractual relations.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas and Others	(2003) 10 SCC 733	Positive	Held that a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226.
Mathew Ignitious C.v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Thrissur and Others	2019 (5) KHC 835	Positive	Divisional Bench held writ petition would lie only for enforcement of specified public duty and for no other purpose; similar petitions were dismissed.
Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh	(2019) 15 SCC 613	Mentioned Only	Cited to caution against the ‘dispose of the representation’ mantra and quick disposal without full adjudication.
W.P (C) Nos. 14546 and 14550/2019	W.P (C) Nos. 14546 and 14550/2019	Positive	Earlier identical decision of this Court against the same bank, holding writ petitions challenging transfer orders are not maintainable.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.F. Paulson v. Chair Person and District Collector (Nodal Officer), Disaster Management Authority, Thrissur District; Chair Person & District Collector (Nodal Officer), Disaster Management Authority, Ernakulam District; Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Kakkanad; The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, represented by its Managing Director and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M.F.PAULSON, BRANCH MANAGER (EMP 45063), THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, ARANATTUKARA BRANCH, THRISSUR, PIN – 680001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** > 1. **THE CHAIR PERSON AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR (NODAL OFFICER) DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR – 680001.** 2. **THE CHAIR PERSON & DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (NODAL OFFICER), DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.** 3. **THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER ( CENTRAL) KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 031. THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,** 4. **CSB BHAVAN, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR – 680 020 R1-R2 SMT.NISHA BOSE -SR GP . R3 SRI.ANEESH JAIN R4 SC SRI.C.A. JOY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are bank officers working in the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited –- a scheduled bank –- the 4[th] respondent. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3 and P4 orders of transfer, whereby, they have been transferred to Chennai, Rajasthan and New Delhi respectively, 3. The petitioners have contended that the transfer orders are issued without considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioners are directed to be relieved from their present branches and to immediately join the branches to which they stand transferred. The National Disaster Management Authority has considered it necessary to take effective measures to prevent the spread of the corona virus in the Country. The issuance of inter-state transfer orders at this juncture is incorrect and would **3** ## **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** negatively impact the governmental measures to prevent the pandemic. The transfer orders are in violation of the transfer guidelines, especially since the petitioners have not completed their normal period of posting at the present stations. The petitioners reserve their right to challenge the transfer orders on its merits. 4. As the Bank is not considering any of the above aspects, the petitioners have preferred Exts.P5 to P7 representations before the respondents 1 and 2 –- the Disaster Management Authorities, to issue appropriate directions to the Bank to keep the transfer orders in abeyance. Likewise, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P8 request before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)-–the 3[rd] respondent, the competent authority to settle the issues of such nature. The petitioners seek directions to be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exts.P5 to P7 and the 3[rd] respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation. **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** **4** Until such time a decision is taken on the above representations, the Bank may be directed to keep in abeyance the transfer orders. 5. Heard Sri.S.Krishna Moorthiy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Nisha Bose, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Aneesh Jain, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer orders are infringement to the right to life of the petitioners, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which warrants immediate interference by this Court to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and to dispose of Exts.P6 to P8 representations. 7. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the Ministry of **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** ## **5** Social Justice and Empowerment has issued Ext.P9 only for the purpose of exempting employees with disabilities from duty, during the lockdown period, whose absence should be treated as “sick leave”. The 3[rd] respondent has no role in the transfer of the petitioners effected by the Bank. 8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the petitioners are in the Officers cadre and, therefore, no proceeding will lie before the 3[rd] respondent under the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petition is only an experimental litigation, which may be dismissed. 9. The questions that emerges for consideration in this writ petition are (i) whether this Court can entertain a writ petition of this nature, against the Bank, which is admittedly is a scheduled Bank, and (ii) whether a direction can be issued to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 to P8 representations. ## **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** ## **6** 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas and Others** [(2003) 10 SCC 733] has categorically declared the law that a private company carrying on banking business, as a scheduled Bank, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The above view has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in **Mathew Ignitious C.v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd, Thrissur and Others** [2019 (5) KHC 835]. 12. It is seen that in an identical case filed against the same bank, by the very same counsel appearing for the petitioners herein, this Court by its judgment dated 30.8.2019 in W.P (C) Nos. 14546 and 14550/2019, after relying on a plethora of decisions, held that a writ petition would lie only for the enforcement of specified public duty and for no other purpose. Consequently, the writ petitions filed **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** ## **7** challenging the transfer orders were dismissed, leaving open the rights of the petitioners therein to be decided in an appropriate proceedings. 13. In view of the above empathetic declaration of law, question number (i) is found against the petitioners. 14. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Government of India and another v. P.Venkatesh** [(2019) 15 SCC 613], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “8. **This “dispose of the representation” mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals.** Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** **8** in finality to the dispute. By the time, the High Court issued its direction on 9.8.2016, nearly twenty-one years had elapsed since the date of the death of the employee” 15. The petitioners seek for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exts.P5 to P7 representations, inter alia, to cancel the transfer orders issued against them. Undisputedly, the Disaster Management Act does not contain any provision enabling the petitioners to seek recourse to the said Act, for ventilation of the present grievance. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are not bound to decide on the representations. 16. Admittedly, the petitioners are Officers of the 4[th] respondent. Therefore, the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable to them. Hence, the 3[rd] respondent is also not bound to consider Ext.P8 representation. 17. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly considering the ratio decidendi in **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** **9** ## **Government of India & Another v. P.Venkatesh,** this Court is not inclined to direct the respondents 1 to 3, to consider Exts.P5 to P8 representations, as the representations are not maintainable before the said respondents. The employment of the petitioners with the Bank is only a private contract of service. I do not find any ground warranting the issuance of writs of mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider Exts.P5 to P8 representations. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the rights of the petitioners to work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings as enjoined in law. ma/04.08.2020 Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE /True copy/ P.S to Judge **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** **10** ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: XT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 9.7.2020 TRANSFERRING THE 1ST PETITIONER TO TIRUPATTUR BRANCH UNDER CHANNAI ZONE EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ANOTHER TRANSFER ORDER DATED 23.7.2020 AS PER ORDER NO.HR/O.1614/T-62/2020 TRANSFERRING THE 1ST PETITIONER TO WALAJAPET BRANCH IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 18.7.2020 AS PER NO.HR/O.1667/T-59/2020, TRANSFERRING THE 2ND PETITIONER TO BHIWADI BRANCH IN RAJASTHAN' EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER NO.HR/O.4130/T-60/2020 DATED 21.7.2020 TRANSFERRING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO PALAM BRANCH IN NEW DELHI EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2020 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2020 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2020 **11** ## **WP(C).No.15849 OF 2020** EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 23.7.2020 EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.34-06/2020-DDIII DATED 28.4.2020 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT.