T SHEPHARD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution and appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in writ appeals have a common set of facts as also law for consideration. These matters have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Hindustan Commercial Bank ('Hindustan' for short), The Bank of Cochin Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'Cochin Bank') and Lakshmi Commercial Bank ( 'Lakshmi' for short) were private banks. Action was initiated under Section 4-5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) for amalgamation of these three banks with Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and State Bank of India respectively in terms of separate schemes drawn under that provision of the Act. Amalgamation has been made. Pursuant to the schemes 28 employees of Hindustan, 21 employees of Cochin Bank and 76 employees of Lakshmi were excluded from employment and their services were not taken over by the respective transferee banks. Some of these excluded employees of the Cochin Bank went before the Kerala High Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge gave them partial relief but on an appeal to the Division Bench by the transferee bank concerned the writ petitions have been dismissed. The civil appeals are against the decision of the Division Bench. The writ petitions directly filed before this Court are by some of the excluded employees of Hindustan and Lakshmi respectively.

(3.) Though employees of the other two banks had not challenged the vires of S. 45 of the Act, on behalf of Lakshmi such a challenge has been made. Since the grounds of attack on this score did not impress us at all, we do not propose to refer to that aspect of the submissions involving interpretation of Art. 31-A, Article 16 and Art. 21. It has often been said by this Court that Courts should not enter into constitutional issues and attempt interpretation of its provisions unless it is really necessary for disposal of the dispute. In our opinion, this group of cases can be disposed of without reference to question of vires of some part of Section 45 of the Act being examined. Counsel on behalf of the excluded employees have broadly contended that the draft schemes did not include any name of employees intended to be excluded; no opportunity of being heard was afforded to them before exclusion was ordered under the schemes and the authorities concerned have not acted fairly; they deny the allegation that any of them was responsible for fictitious, improper or non-business like advances of loan to parties thereby bringing conditions near about bankruptcy for the appropriate banking companies; many other employees against whom there were definite charges already pending enquiry or even orders of dismissal had been proposed have been, taken over and retained in service of the transferee banks while these excluded employees without justification have been called upon to face this unfortunate situation.