RAJAN MALHOTRA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant -bank impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 27.5.2013 by which the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court dated 1.12.2005. The trial court by its judgment dated 1.12.2005 while directing re -appointment of the respondent/plaintiff directed the appellant -bank to consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion in accordance with the service rules and also granted all arrears of salary from 15.4.1993 till passing of the judgment by the trial court. The first appellate court passed the following modification in the judgment of the trial court: -

(2.) THE facts of the case show a chequered history. There was an earlier litigation which was initiated by the respondent/plaintiff being suit No.275/1997. In this suit, two reliefs in alternative were prayed for. One was that if the appellant is treated to have resigned then monetary relief should be granted of Rs.72,951/ - and which amount was the difference between the total of the amounts of gratuity, provident fund etc to be reduced from the loan and other liabilities of the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant -bank. Though the relief clause was not too clear, however the cause of action in the plaint showed arising of disputes as to whether at all the plaintiff should be taken to have resigned from the appellant -bank. This suit No.275/1997 (first suit) was originally dismissed, however, an appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein was allowed by the judgment dated 21.1.2003. By this judgment dated 21.1.2003 the first appellate court in the earlier suit held that the respondent/plaintiff herein, appellant in the earlier appeal, cannot be said to have resigned from the appellant -bank because there was no order passed by the appellant -bank accepting the resignation of the respondent/plaintiff. The first appellate court in the earlier appeal therefore remanded the matter after deciding the additional issue framed in the appeal with respect to the validity of the resignation of the respondent/plaintiff in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and the suit was directed to be decided on merits taking the resignation of the respondent/plaintiff to have been withdrawn and not having been accepted by the bank. Admittedly, neither this judgment of the trial court passed after remand and nor the earlier appellate court judgment dated 21.1.2003 was further appealed from by the appellant -bank herein. After remand of the suit, the suit was decided by the trial court by its judgment dated 2.11.2004 whereby the respondent's/plaintiff's suit was decreed for an amount of Rs.8606/ - alongwith interest @ 9% per annum simple being the amount of the TDS which was said to be illegally deducted by the appellant/bank. This earlier matter rested at the stage of the judgment of the first appellate court in the earlier appeal dated 21.1.2003 and in the suit judgment dated 21.1.2003 becoming final and binding between the parties. Therefore, these judgments operate as res judicata between the parties as to the respondent/plaintiff not having resigned from the bank. Appellant -bank even then refused to appoint the respondent/plaintiff and consequently the present suit came to be filed wherein the respondent/plaintiff claimed the reliefs of direction against the appellant/bank for joining back in services and also payment of arrears of salary etc. The subject/present suit was a suit for declaration and injunction and the following reliefs were prayed: -

(3.) AS already stated above, this judgment of the trial court dated 1.12.2005 has been partially modified by the first appellate court in terms of the impugned judgment by denying the arrears of salary on the ground of 'no work, no pay'.