SYNDICATE BANK Vs. VINCENT ROBERT LOBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S.115 CPC, is by the defendant in OS.No.369 of 1966, on the file of the Munsiff at Mangalcre, South Kanara. It is directed against an order, recording findings on issues 25 and 26 arising therein.

(2.) Issue No.25 relates to the question whether the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable in view of the fact that he had availed himself of the remedy provided by the Industrial Disputes Act, and pursuant to the doctrine of election of remedies, issue No.26 relates to the question whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in view of the bar of jurisdiction clearly implied by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) For the purpose of appreciating the contention urged at the Bar, it is necessary to set out briefly certain material allegations in the plaint. The plaintiff was formerly an employee of the Catholic Bank. By virtue of S.45 of the Banking Companies Act, the said Bank was merged with the Syndicate Bank the defendant herein, on 11-9-1961. As per conditions 10 and 11 of the Scheme of Amalgamation, the existing service conditions governing the employees of the Catholic Bank should continue in force for three years from the date of such amalgamation. It would appear that before such amalgamation there was some agitation against it, in which the plaintiff is said to have played some part. In view of this background, the Syndicate Bank sought to remove him from service on some ground or other. To that end, although the plaintiff had put in several years of service, and was a seasoned employee, the defendant bank directed him to undergo some staff training. It is stated that such training was designed only for the purpose of training apprentices and beginners. The plaintiff, therefore, protested, leading to some interference by the Conciliation Officer. It is however, unnecessary to refer to further proceedings in the said conciliation for the present purpose. The differences persisted for some time. Departmental proceedings were instituted against the plaintiff which culminated in his dismissal from service. It is stated, in regard to that enquiry, that it was in violation of the principles of Natural Justice, inasmuch as no fair and reasonable opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to defend himself. He was dismissed from service on 28-12-1962. It is the case of the plaintiff that the dismissal was wrongful, for various reasons. It was incidentally alleged that the case was one of victimisation and unfair labour practice. On these allegations, the plaintiff sought for the reliefs of declaration that the order of dismissal dated 28-12-1962 was not valid and binding on the plaintiff and for damages of Rs.7,164-74 Ps. with interest, among other reliefs. The defendant denied these allegations and contended that the terms and conditions governing the plainiff, while in service in the Catholic Bank, were subject to alteration at the discretion of the defendant. It was, therefore, not permissible for the plaintiff to rely on them for any purpose. The defendant-Bank also denied the other allegations relating to enquiry and the contravention of the principles of Natural Justice. It also pleaded the bar of jurisdiction and doctrine of election and contended that the suit was not maintainable for the said reasons. It would appear that the plaintiff's cause was taken up by the Bank Employees Union and an attempt made by it to obtain a reference to a Tribunal in that behalf was unsuccessful.