State Bank Of India And ANR v. Union Of India And ORS.

17-11-2025 ct no. 10 Sl.15 RP WPA 24525 of 2025 State Bank of India and Anr.

-VersusUnion of India and Ors.

Mr.Debasish Saha, Ms. Sucheta Pal, Mr.Avirup Roy Sanyal ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Raj Kr.Gaurisara, Mr. Atma Prakash Singh ...for the respondent no.1 to 3 1.

Affidavit-of-service kept be on record.

2.

Mr. Debasish Saha, learned Counsel appears for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the other respondents.

3.

The petitioner submits that the labour union being the respondent no. 4 lodged a complaint pertaining to matter termination of one Sankar Gayen who was working under the respondent no. 6 and was terminated accordingly by the respondent no.

6 herein.

4.

A conciliation proceeding was initiated by Commissioner, (Central) wherein the petitioner being the principal employer was directed to appear in

the conciliation proceedings in compliance of the notices dated 30.07.2021 issued by Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central).

5.

The petitioner submits that the Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) directed the petitioner by an order dated 31.07.2025 which is reproduced as below:

"To conduct any enquiry on the instant dispute matter so as to identify and ascertain the course of termination of Shri Sankar Gayen by the Contractor opposite party 1. All necessary documents of the employment of the worker by the said Contractor shall also be acquired from the contractor for purpose of enquiry. SBI should thoroughly investigate the matter of the termination and try to identify where any injustice has been done to the individual worker by not following the due process of law."

6. Thereafter, the petitioner files a written objection before Commissioner, (Central) Kolkata praying inter alia, for reconsidering and expunging the name from such conciliation proceedings wherein the petitioner as directed to conduct an enquiry and investigate the matter of termination of the respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 6.

7. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that as per Section 12 of Sub-section 2 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Said Act) there is no impediment and/or statutory bar for appointing the petitioner to conduct an

enquiry. Since, the statue under Section 2 of Section contemplates that "the conciliation officer for purpose bringing about a settlement of the dispute without delay, investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and right settlement thereof "do all such things as it deems fit" for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute."

8. The petitioner vehemently opposes such submission of the respondents and submits that section 12(2) pertains to my settlement of a dispute and the petitioner being the principal employer has no role to play since the petitioner bank was not been made party to the dispute.

9. After hearing the rival contention of the parties, I am of the considered view that since an application made by the petitioner dated 10th September, 2025 raised an objection to the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by Commissioner, (Central), Kolkata which remains to be pending for consideration, I direct the Regional Labour Commissioner, (Central) Kolkata to consider the application of the petitioner dated 10.09.2025 within a

period weeks from date communication of this order and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law upon opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties and communicate such decision within a week thereafter.

10. The writ petition is disposed of without taking any exception to the merits of the case.

(Smita Das De, J.)