INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJESH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by Respondent No. 1, Industrial Development Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "IDBI"), of C.W.J.C. No. 286 of 2004*, the Appellant herein, which was allowed by order dated 22.9.2004, whereby the Appellant was directed to release the admissible amount in favour of Bihar Industrial Technical Consultancy Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "BITCO"), for payment of the post-retirement dues of the Petitioner.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of this appeal may be indicated. BITCO is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 6(13) of the Companies Act, 1956. At the relevant point of time, in June 1986, IDBI held shares to the extent of at least 51% in BITCO. IDBI had issued advertisement which had been published in the national dailies on 10.6.1977 (Annexure-1), inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to various posts. Respondent No. 1 had submitted his application for appointment as Consultant, Grade-I (Technical). It appears from Annexures-2 to 4, which are of dates between May 1978 to June 1978, IDBI had called Respondent No. 1 for interview and had formally selected him for appointment on the post in question. By letter dated 27th July, 1978 (Annexure-5), BITCO had issued letter of appointment. The writ Petitioner, Respondent No. 1 herein, joined the post in question on 17.10.1978, in its Patna office. Respondent No. 1 was promoted twice, the second promotion was to the post of Senior Consultant (Technical) Grade-I, on 5.7.1982. White functioning as such, he submitted his resignation which was accepted w.e.f. 16.6.1986, and a portion of his post-retirement benefits were paid to him, but was not paid the following post-retirement benefits:

(3.) In spite of repeated approaches, these benefits were not paid to him, leading to the present C.W.J.C. No. 286 of 2004*. which has been allowed by the impugned order. It has been held that IDBI had all pervasive control over BITCO. One third member of the Board of Directors of BITCO had to be appointed by IDBI. Its Board of Directors, Chairman, and Managing Director had to be nominated by IDBI. IDBI failed to nominate its nominees to Board of Directors, Chairman, and Managing Director for a long length of time which gave rise to huge problems in BITCO, and caused irreparable injury to the organization. The IDBI is liable to meet the deficits of BITCO for the losses in its working. The learned Single Judge has further noted that the dues of Respondent No. 1 herein are admitted, and are fit to be allowed. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed of with the following directions: