SAUMYENDRA NATH MOOKERJEA Vs. ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was serving as an Officer in the United Commercial Bank Limited for about 6 years between 1963 and 1969 and held various senior positions, including Branch Manager of various Branches. The respondent is a foreign Bank, having its registered Office at London and various Branches in India. The respondent Bank is wholly owned subsidiary of Australia and new Zealand Banking Group Limited. The appellant, in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent Bank, applied for the post of Statistician in the year 1969 and was recruited for management Information System Division. The post of Bank's Statistician was a newly created one and was classified as a "special Staff" category job. The appellant joined the service with effect from June 2, 1969. The appellant held various senior positions in the Bank at various levels and claims to have worked to the satisfaction of his superiors. From April 1986, the appellant was awarded Salary Administration Grade "f" with all terms and conditions applicable to such grade which is of a Chief Manager. In January 1989, the appellant was summoned to bombay to work on a Special Project.

(2.) IT is the claim of the appellant that on August 6, 1990 he was called to the Chamber of Mr. Cooke who was working as General Manager, Personal Banking in Bombay and was advised in the presence of Mr. Javeri, General Manager, Management Services and Mr. Mavinkurve to voluntarily retire from service. The appellant was told that in case the appellant declines to do so, then his services would be terminated forthwith. The appellant sought time to consider the advice as the appellant had still about 8 years' service left. The appellant received letter dated august 6, 1990 of the Bank on August 11, 1990 terminating the service of the appellant on the ground that the services are no longer required. The termination was effected in accordance with the provisions contained in Section XXV para (2) of the terms of service applicable. The relevant provisions read as follows :

(3.) THE appellant took out Notice of Motion No. 4509 of 1990 seeking injunction restraining the bank from withdrawing the facilities and the perquisites available to the post which the appellant was holding. The appellant obtained ad interim relief in the motion and when the motion came up for hearing, the Bank file affidavits asserting that the suit was not maintainable and City Civil court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Bank claimed that even assuming that the termination of the services of the appellant is contrary to law, still it is not open for the Court to grant the declaration sought by the appellant. Thee Bank contended that the only remedy of the appellant, if any, for alleged wrongful dismissal is to seek damages and the declaration that the appellant continues to be in employment of the Bank cannot be decreed. The trial Judge framed the preliminary issue about the maintainability of the suit and came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable as it is not permissible to grant such such declaration unless the plaintiff in entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution or under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or the employee is in the employment of the statutory Corporation. In view of the finding that the suit was not maintainable, the finding on the issue as to whether the City Civil Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit was not answered. The Trial Judge by order dated December 18, 1990 dismissed the suit as not maintainable and vacated the ad interim order secured by the appellant on institution of the suit. The appellant preferred First Appeal No. 180 of 1991 in this Court but the appeal was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge by speaking order dated March 4, 1991. The learned Single Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Judge that the suit for specific performance of the contract of personal service is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the appellant that Mr. Justice Bhagwati as he then was in the decision reported in (1976-II-LLJ-163), Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, has carved out one more category of employment where it is permissible for the Court to grant specific performance of contract of personal service. The appellant has preferred appeal under the Letters patent to challenge the decision of the Single Judge.