INDIAN BANK Vs. K USHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question raised in these writ appeals is whether the first respondent in W.A.No.733 of 1992 and the respondent in each of the other writ appeals, hereinafter referred to as ?the writ petitioners?, are entitled to be appointed by the appellant-Indian Bank hereinafter referred to as the ?appellant-Bank?, on compassionate grounds. THE husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.8668 of 1991 (W.A.No.733 of 1992), father of the petitioner in W.P.No.4589 of 1992 (W.ANo.1543 of 1992), father of the petitioner in W.P.No.4921 of 1992 (W.A.No.1544 of 1992); father of the petitioner in W.P.No.5285 of 1992 (W.A.No. 1545 of 1992); father of the petitioner in W.P.No.5286 of 1992 (W.A.No.1546 of 1992); father of the petitioner in W.P.No.5288 of 1992 (W.A.No.1547 of 1992) and the husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.5287 of 1992 (W.A.No.1548 of 1992) were employed in the Bank of Thanjavur Limited and they died in harness. THE said Bank was amalgamated with the appellant-Bank on 20.2.1990 by a notification of scheme of amalgamation dated 19.2.1990. Prior to the amalgamation there was imposition of Moratorium on Bank of Thanjavur Limited with effect from 19.8.1989.

(2.) ALL the writ petitioners have claimed that they are entitled to be appointed by the appellant-Indian Bank as employees on compassionate grounds as their close relatives were employed in the Bank of Thanjavur Limited and died in harness. Excepting in the case of Shri Perumal, husband of Smt.P.Vasantha, the respondent in W.A.No.1548 of 1992, all the rest died before the imposition of moratorium. Four of the respondents (writ petitioners) had admittedly applied for employment to the Bank of Thanjavur, but their claim had not been considered. ALL the writ petitioners applied to the appellant-Bank after it took over on amalgamation. The question is whether the Bank is bound to consider the applications for appointment on compassionate grounds. The contention in short by the appellate-Bank is that the scheme of Amalgamation does not provide for appointment on compassionate grounds for close relatives of persons who died before amalgamation. It is also contended that the scheme provides only for the employees who were in service with the Bank of Thanjavur Limited at the time of amalgamation and not other persons who were not in service.

(3.) THE scheme of Amalgamation is drawn under Sec.45 of the Banking Regulation Act,1949. Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.45 of the said Act sets out the matters for which the scheme may contain provisions. Sub-sec.(5) states that the scheme may contain provisions for all or any one of the matters set out therein. Clause (i) relates to the continuance of the services of all the employees of the banking company (excepting such of them as not being workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) are specifically mentioned in the scheme) in the banking company itself on its reconstruction or, as the case may be, in the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service. A reading of Sub-sec.(5) of Sec.45 shows that it is not necessary for a scheme to provide for all matters which are set out in the sub-section and it can provide for some of them. But if a provision is made with reference to the continuance of the services of all the employees of the banking company it shall not exclude workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the object of the provision is to protect the rights of the persons who are governed by the Industrial Disputes Act.