JAGDISH MITTER MAINI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is listed for rehearing. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they have no further submissions to make and hence the case may be disposed of in view of the submissions already made. Accordingly the petition is being disposed of.

(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited (L.C.B. Ltd.) which was amalgated with the Canara Bank in 1985. The respondent is the Canara Bank. While the petitioner was working as manager of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi, he was placed undersuspension vide Lakshmi Commercial Bank Head Office Letter No. Estt./PLC/84 dated 27-2- 1984. Subsequently a memorandum of charge sheet dated 26.3.1984 was served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.4.1984 denying all the allegations against him. Before taking further action against the petitioner pursuant to the said charge-sheet, the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 4 of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prepared a Scheme for amalgamation of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited, with the Canara Bank. By a notification P.No.17/12/85-B.O.III (ii) dated 23-8-1985 the Government of India sanctioned the said Scheme on and subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said notification. As per the said notification, the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited was the transferor bank and the Canara Bank was the transferee bank and all rights, powers, claims, demands, interests, authorities, privileges, benefits, assets and properties of the transferor bank, subject to the other provisions of the Scheme, stood transferred to and became the properties and assets of the transferee bank from the date which the Central Government would specify for the said purpose under Sub-section 7 of Section 45 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. From the prescribed date alt the liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferor bank shall be and shall become the liabilities, duties and obligations of the transferee bank to the extent and in the manner provided in the notification. All the employees of the transferor bank other than those specified in the schedule annexed to the scheme shall continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 27-4-1985. It was further stated in the notification that the persons specified in the schedule annexed to the scheme shall on the prescribed date cease to be the employees of the transferor bank. in pursuance of sub-section 5 of Section 45 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 the Central Government issued a notification No. F. 17/12/85-B.O. Ill (i) dated 23-8-1985 specifying 24-8-1985 as the prescribed date in relation to the Scheme for the amalgamation of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited with the Canara Bank.

(3.) The respondent (Canara Bank) through a communication dated 24-8-1985 informed the petitioner that in terms of the above mentioned Scheme he ceased to be an employee of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Limited with effect from the commencement of business on 24-8-1985 and consequently he was not an employee of the Canara Bank. Challenging the said communication the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 477/87 in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The said writ, petition, along with other similar petitions, was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 18-9-1987. The judgment in the said cases was reported in AIR 1988 SC 686 as K.I. Shepherd and others Vs. Union of India and Others. In the said judgment the Supreme Court held that the transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to the moratorium and that the employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. However, the court left it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they considered proper.against such employees in accordance with law.