LACHMANDASS AGGARWAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When can an order be said to be based on a compromise between the parties to a writ petition on the analogy of order XXIII Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code? What terms can be implied in such an order ? Does such an order operate as res judicata ? These questions arise at the threshold of this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner is an employee of the respondent Bank. Staff circular No. 20, dated 28th October, 1952, issued by the Bank governed the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Bank. As a result of sub-section (9) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, this order (circular No. 20) made by the Bank is to be deemed to be regulations made by the Bank under sub-section (1) of section 19 prescribing the duties and conduct of officers or other employees of the Bank in its new status after the coming into force of the Act. The relationship is, therefore, governed by a statutory regulation. The relevant regulation is as follows :

(3.) Civil Writ 261 of 1971 was filed by the petitioner against the Bank praying for the following reliefs :