Dismissed¶87

All India Bank Deposit Collectors Workmen Union (R) v. Union of India

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2026WP/2402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pigmy Deposit Scheme; Pigmy collectors/agents commission restriction; Canara Bank circular 31.03.2020 and 17.10.2020; Rs. 1,000 daily collection cap per depositor; Syndicate Bank merger with Canara Bank w.e.f. 01.04.2020; maintainability of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; writ of certiorari; CGIT New Delhi Award I.D No.45/2011 city categories A, B, C and collection targets; S.L.P (CC) No.21210/2016 c/w S.L.P (C) No.19478-98/2016; Civil Appeal Nos.2428-2448/2022; interim orders dated 15.04.2021 and 21.07.2025; trade union of workmen; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed before this Court is not maintainable. ¶80

All India Bank Deposit Collectors Workmen Union… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶87

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition by the registered trade union of Pigmy collectors/workmen, seeking certiorari to quash the Canara Bank circulars dated 31.03.2020 and 17.10.2020 restricting daily collection to Rs.1,000/- per depositor per day and capping commission, is maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶65

Court's answer

The writ petition filed before this Court is not maintainable.

¶80

Ratio / Principle

The services of the petitioner were taken by the respondent/Bank based on certain terms and conditions, and the Award passed in that regard is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶80

Key takeaways

This Court cannot direct the Bank, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contrary to its circulars which are issued by the Bank in the interest of the customers.ratio¶80
If permissible, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy (before the Hon'ble Apex Court, where Civil Appeal Nos.2428-2448/2022 are pending), but this Court cannot direct the respondent while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.ratio¶81

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), 09.03.2026, W.P. No. 2402 of 2021 (GM-RES) — All India Bank Deposit Collectors Workmen Union (R) v. Union of India and Canara Bank: Writ petition seeking certiorari to quash Canara Bank circulars dated 31.03.2020 (no.218/2020) and 17.10.2020 (no.793/2020) capping daily doorstep 'Pigmy' deposit collection at Rs. 1,000/- per depositor per day (with commission payable only up to that sum) DISMISSED as not maintainable. The Court held that the collectors' services were engaged on terms and conditions, with the related CGIT Award (I.D No.45/2011) under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and that it cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, direct the Bank contrary to its circulars issued in the interest of customers/depositors; petitioners left at liberty to pursue the remedy before the Hon'ble Apex Court (Civil Appeal Nos.2428-2448/2022 pending); all pending I.As. closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT

¶10

COLLECTORS WORKMEN UNION (R)

¶11

NO.162, 3^RD CROSS 2^ND STAGE

¶12

GAYATHRIPURAM

¶13

MYSURU-570 019 REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE)

¶16

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

AND:

¶18

UNION OF INDIA

¶19

MINISTRY OF FINANCE 3^RD FLOOR

JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING

SANSAD MARG

NEW DELHI-110 001

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶24

CANARA BANK

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

HC-KAR

CORPORATE OFFICE.112

J C ROAD

BENGALURU-560 002 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER

¶31

3. GENERAL MANAGER

¶32

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

¶33

PIGMY DEPOSIT SECTION (NND)

CANARA BANK 112

J C ROAD

BENGALURU-560 002

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMBAL, CGC A/W SRI.H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R1

¶39

SRI.T.P.MUTTANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 31.03.2020 AND THE CIRCULAR DATED 17.10.2020 ANNEXURE-A AND B ISSUED BY THE R-3.

¶41

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶48

prayer:

¶49

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

¶50

(a) Issue a writ of CERTIORARA to quash the circular bearing no.218/2020 dated 31/03/2020 and the Circular bearing no.793/2020 dated 17/10/2020 ( Annexure-A and B) issued by the Respondent no.3;

¶51

(b) Award costs of this petitions;

¶52

(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶53

2. The petitioner is a registered Trade union of workmen. It is stated that three visionaries in the year 1925, with commitment to social welfare, established Syndicate Bank in Udupi, with an objective to extend the financial assistance to the local weavers who were crippled by crisis in the handloom industry through mobilising small savings from the community. The Bank collected as low as 2 annas (24 paisa) daily at the doorstep of the depositors through its agents under its Pigmy Deposit Scheme, which was started in the year 1928. The

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

agents were called popularly as Pigmy collectors and this scheme became the brand equity of the Bank and the collections rose to more than 2 crores per day under the scheme all over the country. The said scheme is in existence for more than 9 decades.

¶58

3. It is stated that the Pigmy collectors were appointed by the Branch Manager of Banks at branch level under individual contracts and issued with identity card after obtaining the permission of the Head Office and the daily collections of the individual agent was to be deposited on the next working day with the Bank and the agent was paid a commission which was between 2% to 3.5% of the collection and the Bank used to deduct 10% of the commission paid to the agent as Security Deposit. Earlier, there was no cap for the collection of the amount. Later, the Syndicate Bank has merged with the Canara Bank with effect from 01.04.2020 by gazette notification and all the employees of the transferor Bank became the employees of the transferee Bank, so also the Pigmy agents.

¶59

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that under the impugned circulars the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have stated that

¶60

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

the agent cannot collect more than Rs.1,000/- per day per depositor and even though he collects more than the said maximum amount then the agent is entitled for commission only for the sum of Rs. Rs.1,000/- and not beyond that and by putting a restriction on the earning of the commission of the agent which does not stand any logic nor a prudent restriction. It is stated that there are innumerable depositors in the business circle who deposit more than Rs.1,000/- per day and the agents are bound to collect the same but without any incentive. It is stated that the CGIT, New Delhi, under an Award I.D No.45/2011 had fixed three category of cities i.e., A, B & C and the Pigmy agents are required to collect minimum of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.4 lakhs, and Rs.3 lakhs per month respectively or Rs.15 lakhs, Rs.12 lakhs, and Rs.9 lakhs per quarter. If the Pigmy agent fails to reach this target in two consecutive quarters, then the management can terminate the agency without even hearing which is totally in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has challenged the Award before the Hon’ble Apex Court which is pending in S.L.P (CC) No.21210/2016 C/w S.L.P (C) No.19478-98/2016. It is the grievance of the petitioner that this circular imposes

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

restriction on the collection of the amount and as per the contract, they have to collect only an amount of Rs.30,000/per month. It is submitted that now they have restricted the daily collection to Rs.1,000/- and the learned counsel has also expressed the difficulties that are faced because of the nonfunctioning of the machines for the next day. It is submitted that the Pigmy collectors are facing lot of difficulties and the respondent/Bank without any rational, has imposed the condition that they should not collect more than Rs.1,000/- per day per person.

¶66

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an order on 15.04.2021 which reads as follows:

¶67

“By ad-interim it is directed that pending disposal of this writ petition, services of Pigmy collectors shall not be dispensed with. Commission payable shall be based on collection as per the circulars dated 31.03.2020 and 17.12.2020 issued by the Canara Bank, Bengaluru, and it shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.”

¶68

It is submitted that taking advantage of such interim order, some of the Pigmy collectors are not meeting the required collection of amount mentioned in the circulars. In some cases,

¶69

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the financial irregularities were also observed. The order dated 15.04.2021 is modified by order dated 21.07.2025 observing that

¶72

“The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 would be free to take necessary action against any misappropriation alleged against any Pigmy collectors despite the matter pending before the Court or the interim order passed.”

¶73

It is submitted that as per the award, if the Pigmy collectors fail

¶74

to reach the target, they can terminate the contract. It is stated that taking advantage of this order, the petitioner though they are not complying with the same are resricted by the Bank.

¶75

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by any of the action of the Bank can question these proceedings before the Hon’ble Apex Court where the civil appeal is pending. It is submitted that the circular that is issued by the respondent only stipulates that daily collection per day per account shall not exceed Rs.1,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel that they are permitted to collect Rs.1,000/- per customer per day. The Bank has every right to fix its own norms in the interest of the customers and that cannot be questioned before

¶76

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:14054 WP No. 2402 of 2021

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

this Court by way of writ of certiorari. It is submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶80

7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The writ petition filed before this Court is not maintainable. The services of the petitioner were taken by the respondent/Bank based on certain terms and conditions. It is stated that they are the workmen. In that regard, an Award was also passed which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court cannot direct the Bank, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contrary to their circulars which are issued by the Bank in the interest of the customers.

¶81

It is also submitted by he learned counsel appearing for the Bank that certain financial irregularities are also found. It is the duty of the Bank to protect the interests of the depositors/customers. It is submitted that Civil Appeal Nos.2428-2448/2022 is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. If it is permissible, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy, but this Court cannot direct the respondent, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226. In the light of the above

¶82