The Calcutta High Court has held that the job profile of unarmed personnel employed as ATM caretakers, involving maintaining cleanliness and keeping an overall watch over ATMs, does not qualify as security work.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) made the observation while quashing an order directing the State Bank of India (SBI) to pay ₹44.23 lakh towards alleged short payment of minimum wages to 69 personnel engaged as ATM caretakers.

The dispute arose from a Comprehensive Caretaker Services Agreement entered into by SBI with a contractor on March 7, 2016 for maintaining the bank's ATMs in the Asansol region.

The personnel were designated as "caretaker personnel" under the agreement. Their duties included maintaining the cleanliness of ATMs, keeping an overall watch over the machines and informing bank officials or authorities about any disturbance or untoward incident.

However, under the original agreement, the personnel were paid minimum wages applicable to the "Watch and Ward (unarmed)" category. SBI subsequently executed a supplementary agreement on July 20, 2018, revising the wage structure to the category applicable to sweeping and cleaning work.

A Labour Enforcement Officer later alleged that the personnel were actually performing security duties and were therefore entitled to the higher minimum wages applicable to "Watch and Ward (unarmed)" personnel.

The Minimum Wages Authority accepted the contention and held that the "Core Nature" of the workers' job was providing "Security and Surveillance" of ATM booths, while sweeping and cleaning were merely peripheral duties. It directed SBI to pay ₹44,23,548 towards the difference in wages for 69 workers, along with compensation.

'First Requirement Of A Security Guard Is Being Armed'

The Court noted that the personnel were "admittedly without arms" and were required to maintain the cleanliness of the ATMs while keeping an overall watch over them.

"The said job description does not include any of the ingredients required for a person who act's as a security," the Court held.

The Court further observed: "The first requirement of a 'security guard' is being armed."

It explained that an unarmed person could only inform the authorities at the appropriate time during supervision of the ATMs, which was consistent with their designation as "caretaker personnel".

The High Court also found fault with the evidentiary basis of the Labour Authority's decision.

The inspection report recorded that employees had allegedly stated that their designation had been changed from "security guard" to "housekeeping" without prior notice.

However, the Court noted that none of those employees were examined and no evidence was adduced to substantiate the statement.

"Without verification of such statement of the enforcement officer and without the same being proved by way of evidence, the authority concerned proceeded to pass the impugned order, on presumption," the Court observed.

The Court noted that the original agreement consistently designated the employees as "caretaker personnel".

It further found that the agreement contemplated duties relating to cleaning and maintenance, along with keeping watch over the ATMs and reporting disturbances or untoward incidents to bank officials.

The supplementary agreement, according to the Court, did not change the designation of the personnel. Rather, it sought to rectify the wage structure after SBI discovered that wages were being paid under the "Watch and Ward (unarmed)" category despite the personnel being designated as caretakers principally engaged in "sweeping and cleaning".

The High Court also referred to a 2017 decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Virendar Kabra v. State Bank of India, concerning similarly designated ATM caretakers.

In that case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had found that the job profile involved maintaining the cleanliness of ATM sites and that the caretakers were not armed. It held that payment of wages applicable to sweeping and cleaning work could not be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

The Calcutta High Court ultimately held that the findings recorded by the Minimum Wages Authority were "not based on proper evidence" and were also not based on proper appreciation of the documents and materials on record.

The Court held that the impugned order "suffers from inherent illegality" and consequently quashed and set it aside.

SBI's writ petition was accordingly allowed.

Case No: WPA 13625 of 2025

Case: State Bank of India Vs Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read order