LAWS(UTN)-2006-11-15

UMENDRA KUMAR TANDON Vs. CHAIRMAN, BANK OF BARODA

Decided On November 21, 2006
Umendra Kumar Tandon Appellant
V/S
CHAIRMAN, BANK OF BARODA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 2 to decide the representation made by the petitioner for reinstatement in service. It is 'further prayed that writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing order dated 29th March 1985, whereby petitioner's services were terminated.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) A counter -affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the Nainital Bank Limited, in which it is stated that the Bank is a private sector bank and is not an instrumentality of State, within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated in the counter -affidavit of the Bank that the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 1, has merely a capacity of shareholder of the answering Bank. It is further stated that Bank of Baroda is a Nationalized Bank under the Banking Company (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, whereas, Nainital Bank Ltd. is merely a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. In reply to the facts alleged in the writ petition, it is stated in the counter -affidavit, that the petitioner, claiming himself to be a workman, has already approached the labour court, for redressal of his grievances, and two parallel proceedings are not maintainable. It is further alleged that the petitioner is guilty of concealment of facts relating to proceedings pending in the labour court. As to the misconduct, it is stated in the counter -affidavit that an appeal against acquittal has already been preferred by the Government, in the High Court against the order of the appellate court, by which the judgment of the trial court was set aside. Defending the order of dismissal passed under Section 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is alleged by the answering respondent, that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.