A PRO bono publico writ has appealed to the Indore High Court bench to declare the strike called by State Bank of India (SBI) employees as unconstitutional.
The public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution (read with Article 14, 21 and Directive Principles of Sate Policy) said that SBI, which claims to provide better services than other banks, had denied account holders right to withdraw and deposit money and their threat to continue strike till demands were met was arbitrary.
The PIL said that no court of law had held the salary of bank employees unlawful or unreasonable. Rather, they draw fat salary and enjoy miscellaneous benefits compared to large number of people who have no access to even proper food, clothing and shelter and whose children have to labour hard to make ends meet, the PIL said.
Petitioner Satya Pal Anand stated that the groups (employees’ unions) have abused the powers by denying the people their right to access bank facility since past four days and crippling the public services. This ‘hero worship’ (obeying the command of union office-bearers) is sure road to degradation that eventually ends in dictatorship.
The bank strike, he added, had left no outlet for people who may need money to meet emergencies like death, treatment at hospital or to undertake an urgent trip. Charging the bank officials with being rude to the customers during the strike, the litigation said that SBI, Reserve Bank of India, Union Finance Ministry and Prime Minister have a duty to act promptly to end the strike.
It demanded to know as to what other remedy was left for people to seek relief other than courts of law, where the inaction of these agencies could be challenged.
{{/usCountry}}It demanded to know as to what other remedy was left for people to seek relief other than courts of law, where the inaction of these agencies could be challenged.
{{/usCountry}}The PIL stressed that the strike was no solution to meet demands, for it promotes anarchy. Reiterating that the strike was unlawful, PIL said that there were Constitutional remedies available for redressal.