KARNATAKA STATE CO OP AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Vs. WORKMEN OF P L D B COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) writ appeal No. 2825 of 1986 is presented by the Karnataka State co-operative agricultural and rural development bank limited aggrieved by the judgment of the learned judge allowing the writ petition and setting aside the award of the industrial tribunal, Bangalore, holding that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen of the primary land development banks and the common cadre authority and the appellant-bank and remanding the matter for disposal of the reference, in accordance with law. Writ appeal No. 2995 of 1986 is presented by the common cadre authority against the same judgment.

(2.) learned counsel for the appellants submitted that during the pendency of these writ appeals, in a reference made to the full bench under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the full bench has held that after substitution of new Section 128-a of the act in place of old Section 128-a, the common cadre authority ceased to exist learned counsel for the workmen does not dispute that in view of the judgment of the full bench, the common cadre authority itself did not exist on and after the substitution of old Section 128-a by new Section 128-a of the act and there fore there ,s no question of relationship of master and servant between the workmen of the primary land development banks and the common cadre authority.

(3.) as far as the Karnataka State Co-operative agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Is concerned, the stand of the bank is that the workmen of the primary land development banks (re-designated as agri cultural and rural development bank by amending act 5 of 1984 and referred as "rural development bank" for short hereinafter in this order) are not their employees but they were the employees of the respective primary land development banks. The factual position is that the workmen concerned in the reference are all employees of the rural development banks concerned, is also not in dispute. Therefore, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the tribunal for disposing of the reference.