IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) WPA 13614 of 2026 State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. With WPA 11541 of 2026 M/s. S & IB Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. For the Petitioner in : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv, WPA 11541 of 2026 Mr. Amarta Ghose, and Respondent No.5 in Ms. Rituparna De Ghose, WPA 13614 of 2026 Mr. Souryadeep Ghosh. For the Petitioners in : Mr. Debashis Saha, WPA 13614 of 2026 Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, and Respondent in Mrs. Sucheta Pal, WPA 11541 of 2026 Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar. For the Respondent Nos. : Mr. Subhas Chandra Sarkar. 3 & 4 in both writ petition For the Union of India in : Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, WPA 13614 of 2026 Mr. Pradip Kr. Kundu. For the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gaurisaria, in WPA 11541 of 2026 Mr. Goutam Dinda. 2 Judgment reserved on : 27.08.2026 Judgment delivered on : 30.09.2026 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.: 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the order dated 16th March, 2026 and the corrigendum dated 24th March, 2026, passed in the said Application MW No. 11 of 2025 passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Asansol. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners herein has relied upon an order dated 22nd May, 2026 passed by this Court in WPA 11541 of 2026, wherein the "contractor" of the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the same order. The petitioner and the contractor were protected on considering the status of a "contractor". (WP 9628(W) of 2018 (HDFC Bank v. Union of India & Ors. was relied upon.) 3. The petitioner herein being the State Bank of India had submitted in WPA 11541 of 2026 that the Bank (principal employer) was making payment to the "contractor" as per the State minimum wages of the Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. 4. In the said order this Court recorded as follows:- "From final records of the Reserve Bank of India it appears that the RBI has identified the HDFC Bank, State Bank of India and ICIC Bank as domestic systematically important 3 banks though the constitution of the two banks are different but the principle as laid down in HDFC Bank Ltd. (supra) relates to the applicability of the Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate Government. In the said judgment the High Court categorically decided that the minimum wages, as declared by the State Government, would be applicable in respect of a contractor. In the present case admittedly the petitioner M/s. S & I B Services Ltd. is a contractor.” 5. The Court finally held as follows:- "It will appear from above submissions that there is no dispute raised regarding workmen being employees of contractor. Contractor, it appears, has caused downward revision in pay in line with making applicable minimum wages payable at State rate, being below Central rate. This was effected in tandem, on the Bank having so reduced. However, so far as the dispute is concerned it is between workmen-employees against their employer, contractor, Contractor, it has been successfully demonstrated, comes under sub clause (ii), clause (b) of section 2 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Facts in this case are similar to facts in case decided vide order dated 3rd August, 2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP 4895 (W) of 2011 (Susanta Naskar vs. Union of India), as relied upon by Mr. Sengupta. In facts and circumstances aforesaid, this Court finds appropriate Government in relation to contractor, against whom dispute can be raised by workmen, is State Government. Aggrieved workmen must approach State Government for redressal, whether initially straightway by reference conciliation of or apprehended dispute. Petitioners are entitled to declaration that they are not obliged to attend conciliation proceedings initiated by Central Government." 4 6. This Court considering the status of the petitioner therein, being a "contractor" prima facie held that the contractor would be covered under the State minimum wages. In the present case, the petitioner is the State Bank of India (principal employer) and the appropriate government is the Central Government. 7. In view of the observations in paragraphs 1 to paragraph 5 of WPA 11541 of 2026, this Court has to decide as to whether the State Bank of India which admittedly stands on a different footing from that of HDFC Bank, is liable to pay the Central minimum wages or the State minimum wages. 8. Vide the impugned order in the present case, the authority under the Central Government has adjudicated that the petitioner herein being the principal employer is liable to pay the Central minimum wages. 9. Be it noted that in case the petitioner herein being the State Bank of India is liable to pay the Central minimum wages, then the same would also apply to the "contractor" working under the petitioner (principal employer) (SBI) herein, who would have then automatically paid the minimum wages at the central rate to its employees an receiving the same from the principal employer SBI herein. 10. Whether the State Bank of India is liable to pay the Central minimum wages as adjudicated, is to be decided by this Court, considering that the petitioner in WPA 11541 of 2026 herein is a contractor under the State Bank of India. 5 11. The impugned order has been challenged by both the parties, and as such the two writ applications on being heard together are being disposed of by a common order. 12. The petitioner in WPA 11541 of 2026 is the contractor and the petitioner in WPA 13614 of 2026 is the principal employer. 13. The petitioner Bank’s case in short is that it carries out various work connected with banking activities and for its smooth functioning is required to take contractors and/or vendors. Such contractors are engaged, who in turn appoint workmen for such purpose. The contractors pay the workmen the wages and the petitioner/bank is required to reimburse the same. 14. It is submitted that if the concerned contractor is legally liable to pay any worker any amount of minimum wages as declared by the State Government, in that case it is quite obvious that the petitioner bank will also be liable to pay to the said contractor accordingly and not the minimum rates of wages notified by the Central Government, in as much as the employee of the contractor cannot be paid more than the amount payable legally by the contractor, since a principle employer is liable only to the extent the immediate employer is liable. 15. The employees of the contractor in this case are paid wages above the State Government declared minimum rates of wages, but below the Central Government rates of wages. As such, the petitioner bank is only liable to reimburse the wages which is payable by the contractor to its employees by the contractor and obviously not more or less than the same. 6 16. The petitioners rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in HDFC (Supra) and submit that the minimum rate notified by the State Government is applicable as the minimum rate of wages in the present case also. The petitioner states that the authority passing the impugned order herein seriously erred in law by holding that the said decision passed in the case of HDFC (Supra) is not at all applicable in the present case since HDFC is a private bank, whereas State Bank of India is a government Bank. 17. In the instant case it cannot be the point for consideration at all whether the Principal employer is a private entity or a government entity or even if it is under the State Government or under the Central Government. In respect of HDFC as well as in respect of SBI, the appropriate government may be the Central Government in so far as Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 is concerned. But the same consideration would not at all apply in respect of schedule employment for the workers primarily working under the contractors. 18. It is further stated that the said authority fell in grave error by coming to the conclusion that since SBI was constituted by an Act of Parliament, therefore, Central Government is the "Appropriate Government" under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said authority further erred by holding that since under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act, the Appropriate Government is supposed to fix the rate of minimum wages, so, in the instant case the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Central Government are applicable. 7 19. It is argued that even if State Bank of India is a creature under a legislation, enacted by the Parliament, still it is a body corporate and does not come under the definition of Central Government, as envisaged in Section (8) of the General Clauses Act of 1897. So the minimum rates of wages notified by the Central Government cannot apply for working labourers working under the contractors of the SBI. 20. The following decisions are cited by the petitioner Bank, where appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 and Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970, have been held to be the State Government, in respect of Central Government companies:- (i) Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. vs National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1 (para 39, 127). (ii) Nashik Workers Union vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (2016) 6 SCC 224 (para 32-34). 21. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation or contrary to the provisions laid down in Section 20(7) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, in as much as, the impugned order has been passed without allowing the parties to adduce evidence. 22. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 being the authority under the Minimum Wages Act and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) have contested the application stating therein that SBI was established by an Act of Parliament, with significant central ownership and operational control vested in the Central Government/RBI. The workmen in question perform daily operational security and cash-handling duties 8 directly within SBI premises under the supervision of SE administration. The legal fiction sought to be created by the Petitioner that their private corporate status alters the regulatory regime-is unsustainable in law, as the place of work and the principal employer's establishment determine the scheduled employment sphere and are thus distinct from Private Banking Institutions. 23. The respondents state that the petitioner's reliance on judgments concerning private commercial banks (such as HDFC Bank vs. Union of India Ors.) is misplaced. SBI is a statutory corporate body carrying out nationalized public banking duties under Central legislative authority, distinct from purely private banking entities. 24. The respondent submits that there has been lawful Exercise of Jurisdiction by Respondent No. 2, which are:- i. Statutory Mandate under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948:- Respondent No. 2 acted strictly within its statutory authority under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Authority conducted due proceedings, provided equal opportunity of hearing to both the contractor and the principal employer, evaluated the evidence on record, and correctly applied the Central Minimum Wage notifications applicable to security and supervisory categories. ii. Justification for Awarding Compensation. Discretionary Statutory Remedy:- 9 Under Section 20(3)(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Authority is empowered to award compensation up to ten times the amount of wage arrears in cases of non- payment or short-payment of minimum wages. Respondent No. 2 awarded compensation equal to 2 times the principal difference, which is well within the statutory limit and represents a balanced, judicious exercise of discretion. Persistent short-payment of wages below Central notified rates over a long period (April, 2022- September, 2025) justified the award of compensation to protect the workers from economic hardship. 25. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ application. 26. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 have also filed their written notes and have supported the case of the other respondents. 27. One of the arguments put forward by Mr. Majumder, which appears to be justified is that if a contractor whose business is confined to one state is made to pay minimum wage at the central rate, it will be difficult for him to conduct his business of supplying labour to other agencies/establishments to which the state minimum wage applies and will be placed in a difficult situation when, the said labour/workers who are employed in the establishments, where the central minimum wage applies and then later are deployed to establishments where the State rate applies, will obviously be aggrieved with the lesser rate leading to disturbance and unrest. 10 28. In Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Versus National Union Waterfront Workers And Ors, dated 30.08.2001, (2001) 7 SCC, wherein the Supreme Court held:- “39. There cannot be any dispute that all the Central Government companies with which we are dealing here are not and cannot be equated to the Central Government though they may be "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. We have held above that being the instrumentality or agency of the Central Government would not by itself amount to having the authority of the Central Government to carry on that particular industry. Therefore, it will be incorrect to say that in relation to any establishment of a Central Government company/undertaking, the appropriate Government will be the Central Government. To hold that the Central Government is "the appropriate Government" in relation to an establishment, the court must be satisfied that the particular industry in question is carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government. If this aspect is kept in mind it would be clear that the Central Government will be the "appropriate Government" under the CLRA Act and the ID Act provided the industry in question is carried on by a Central Government company/an undertaking under the authority of the Central Government. Such an authority may be conferred, either by a statute or by virtue of the relationship of principal and agent or delegation of power. Where the authority, to carry on any industry for or on behalf of the Central Government, is conferred on the government company/any 11 undertaking by the statute under which it is created, no further question arises. But, if it is not so, the question that arises is whether there is any conferment of authority on the government company/any undertaking by the Central Government to carry on the industry in question. This is a question of fact and has to be ascertained on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. 127. The order of the High Court at Calcutta, under challenge, insofar as it relates to holding that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of the CLRA Act, is confirmed but the direction that the contract labour shall be absorbed and treated on a par with the regular employees of the appellants, is set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part.” 29. The Court while deciding the issue laid down the following test to determine the criteria as to decide, “The Appropriate Government” relating to an establishment:- “…………….Further, the definition of "establishment" in the CLRA Act takes in its fold purely private undertakings which cannot be brought within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. All the Central Government companies involved in the instant cases are not and cannot be equated to the Central Government though they may be "State" within the meaning of Article 12………………. [Paras 38, 39, and 46] 12 “Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government. [Paras 125(1)(a)]” “After 28-1-1986, in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the said question is to be found in Section 2(a) of the ID Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (iii) the industry is a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government. 13 [Paras 125(1)(b)]” 30. In Nashik Workers Union Versus Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 224, decided on 26.02.2016, the Supreme Court held:- “32. In the case at hand, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the decision in HAL 24 can be regarded as a binding precedent. As is noticeable, HAL 24 has not taken note of the earlier decision in HAL 16. It has been clearly held in HAL 16 that regard being had to the dictionary clause of the ID Act for the purpose of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., it is the State Government which has to make the reference. In HAL 24 the Court has referred to the decision in SAIL case and opined that it is undisputed that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an undertaking of the Central Government and it is the Central Government which exercises full control over the same and, therefore, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. This analysis runs counter to HAL 16 and as well the ratio of the decision in SAIL case³. On the contrary there is no discussion either on the facts or the law. It has been opined that the facts are "undisputed". 33. In HAL 16, the three-Judge Bench had referred to the decision in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union. As has been held in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union's, the authority in Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union has been approved in SAIL³ with some divergence. The authority in SAIL case³, as the conclusion would show, covers two situations the unamended provision and the amended provision. It does not disturb the principles stated in HAL 16. Thus, two 14 aspects, first. HAL 24 does not take note of HAL 16 and second, it proceeds on the basis of undisputed facts which are not stated. It is to be noted that there is nothing in the order in HAL 24 to suggest that Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is an agent of the Central Government. 34. In our considered opinion, as HAL 24 has not noticed HAL 16 which has been approved in SAIL case³, it cannot be considered as a binding precedent. Therefore, we hold that HAL1 still holds good and lays down the correct law and we are bound by it as its foundation flows from Heavy Engg. Mazdoor Union which has been approved in SAIL³ with some divergence as has been stated in Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union 18. Be it stated, that divergence really does not affect the approval. We have no hesitation in our mind that HAL 24 cannot be regarded as a binding precedent. Ergo, it is clear that the Division Bench of the High Court has not applied the ratio in SAIL case³ correctly and, therefore, the entire analysis has to be held to be fallacious. 35. The controversy does not end there. It is perceptible that the High Court has not adverted to the merits of the case and dismissed LPA No. 144 of 2002 on the ground that it did not survive after dismissal of LPA No. 84 of 2006. As we have set aside the order passed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Nashik Workers Union' and opined that the "appropriate Government" in relation to the respondent Company is the State Government, the matter has to be remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.” 15 31. Thus, it prima facie appears from the said judgments that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the West Bengal Government is the appropriate Government within the meaning of CLRA Act. (National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors.(Supra). 32. “Appropriate Government” under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 is defined under Section 2 (b) of Minimum Wages Act 1948 as:- (i) in relation to any scheduled employment carried on by or under the authority of the central government or a railway administration or in relation to a mine, oilfields of major port, or any corporation established by a central Act, - the central government. (ii) in relation to any other scheduled employment, the state government. 33. The respondent/employees herein are employed through contractors. 34. In National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (Supra), the Supreme Court in Para 127 held:- “………..the West Bengal Government is the appropriate government within the meaning of CLRA Act”. 35. The employees are paid through contractors, who admittedly supply contract labour at various establishments, operating within a State. 36. As the contract labours are admittedly engaged through contractors within a State, for the work carried out within the said State, the West Bengal Government in the present case is the appropriate 16 Government in respect of the petitioner, and thus also in respect of tenders given to the contractors, who supply the work force. 37. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to that effect in National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (Supra) supports the said fact. 38. Thus being under the State Government as the appropriate Government in respect of CLRA Act, the State Minimum Wages Act is applicable to the employees (Contract Labours) of the petitioner herein (Steel Authority of India Ltd.(Supra) and HDFC (Supra)). 39. The impugned orders dated 16th March, 2026 and the corrigendum dated 24th March, 2026, passed in the said Application MW No. 11 of 2025 passed by the Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Asansol, being not in accordance with law are set aside. 40. WPA 13614 of 2026 along with WPA 11541 of 2026 are allowed. 41. Applications, if any, connected thereto stand disposed of consequently. 42. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 43. Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)