LexBANK OF BARODA versus RAJENDER PAL SONI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BANK OF BARODA A v. RAJENDER PAL SONI FEBRUARY 19, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Service Law : Temiination of Service by payment of three months' pay in lieu of requisite notice-Same day employee tendering resignation and retuming the C cheque issued to him--Amalgamation of bank-Employee's services trans- ferred-Transferor Bank accepting the resignation-Employee filing a suit against the transferee- Bank for arrears of pay-Maintainability of-Held: In view of the specific provision in the Amalgamation Scheme in paras 3 and JO of the notification mrears of salary is liability to be discharged by the transferor-Bank and not of transferee- Bank-Hence the suits are clearly not D maintainable-Banking Companies Regulation Act, 1949--S.45. Chainnan, Canara Bank, Bangalore v. M.S. Jasra & Ors., AIR (1992) SC 1100 and U.P. Electricity Board, Lucknow through it Chainnan and Anr. v. Radhey Mohan Venna, Supp.2 SCC 356, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4390 of 1996. Form the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.95 of the Delhi High Court in C.R.P. No. 595 of 1994. AK. Chitale T.C. Sharma and Attar Singh for the Appellants. B. Bhattacharjee and K. Bhattacharjee for the Respondents. The following Order of the- Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. E F G It is not necessary to preface the antecedent enquiry conducted against the respondent for misconduct by the Traders Bank which. was H 837 838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (1996] 2 S.C.R. A amalgamated with the appellant-Bank. Suffice it to state that on June 25, 1986 the respondent's service was sought to be terminated by issuance of an order on offering three months' pay in lieu of the requisite notice. Instead, the respondent on even date had tendered his resignation (Ex.P-5) to Traders Bank; transferor-Bank of the appellant had accepted the resig- B nation on July 2, 1986. Consequently, the respondent had returned the cheque of salary offered to him in lieu of notice on the even date. Under Section 45 of the Banking Companies Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, the 'Act'), the scheme of amalgamation of transferor bank with the appellant bank, with effect from November 20, 1987 (Ex.P-8) was initiated. The Central Government had accepted the amalgamation under sub-section (7) C of Section 45 of the Act with effect from the appointed date viz. May 13, 1988. A scheme in that behalf was approved by Central Government. Clause 10 of the scheme provides as under : D "All the employees of the transferor bank shall continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 20th November, 1987." Para 2 of the notification dated May 12, 1988 issued under Section E 45(1) read with sub-section (2) ·of Section 45 of the Act envisages, among other things undertaking of the liabilities with respect to the pending suits, appeal or other legal proceedings of whatever nature by or against the transferor bank arising as on the prescribed date were allowed to continue on the appellant-Bank· thus : F G "If on the prescribed date any suit, appeal or other legal proceed- ings of whatever nature by or against the transferor bank is pend- ing, the same shall not abate, or be discontinued or be in any way prejudicially affected, but shall subject to the other provisions of this scheme, be prosecuted and enforced by or against the trans- feree bank." ( Admittedly, the respondent had filed the CiVil suit No. 123 of 1989 which is now re-numbered as Suit No. 61 of 1993 to recover a sum of Rs. 69,680 as the arrears of his pay etc. and also filed Civil Suit No. 122 of 1989 which is now re-numbered as Suit No. 63 of 1993, on June 3, 1989 for H declaration that the acceptance of resignation by the Traders Bank, viz., l .~ \.. BANKOFBARODAv. RP.SONI 839 the transferor Bank was illegal. Relying upon the notification, the appellant A raised preliminary objection after filing written statement ·to the main- tainability of the suit which was rejected by the trial Court. In revision No. 595/94 by order dated March 21, 1995, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision summarily. Even in this appeal the only question is : whether the appellant is B liable to takeover the services of the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.